I lived in Juelich in mid-1980s and used to ride my bike through Puffendorf, Immendorf, Gereonsweiler etc. Many villages still had pockmarks and other visible reminders of the battles there.
I wonder if such war damage is in some cases preserved as a reminder and token od the battles fought there? If desired, I suppose they could have been repaired and the damage hidden. Or perhaps they simply hadn't gotten around to that.
There seems to be a lot of footage, documents that contradict your statement Would it be more accurate that most tank on tank battles start from the previously mentioned caverly style engagements? Armored cavelry was the original purpose and doctrine of The us army after WW1 prior to and during WW2?
@SeattlePioneer 40% of allied armour losses in NW Europe in WW2 was to other German armour. Tank v tank or armour v armour clashes wasn't rare, especially not for the Germans. German armour faced allied armour practically everywhere along the fronts. While allied tank crews didn't face German armour everywhere, the opposite wasn't true.
Shermans were as big as was feasibly reasonable due to logistics. It was a medium tank produced in huge numbers that had to be shipped across the Atlantic. Larger tanks were not feasible with all the extra weight & size. Also, the really big tanks were very limited as to where they could go and operate, because of natural terrain problems and inadequate bridges. The German Stug 3 did more damage than any big tank.
A lot of people don't get that! They have the mentality of bigger is always better, which lead to idea, like the Germans wanting to produce bigger and bigger tanks, like the Maus, not stopping to think about how it's going to move, when almost no bridges could support it. But above all, our tanks mostly were supporting our infantry, not fighting other tanks. The Sherman did it's main job very, very well! The German way sure didn't work out in the end!
additionally, the Sherman was limited by 40 tonne limit as that was the capacity of dockyard cranes at the time in most ports, both US and europe and England. a tiger sized tank isn't much good to anyone if you cant load it onto a ship. Amateurs talk of tactics while professionals talk of logistics (ancient roman saying)
At 8'30" the video makes reference to the village of Gereonsweiler. Gee, that was my mother's hometown. She was 20 in 1945 and still lived there. I can also see the woods and country highway where my uncle lived. My father met my mother in that village when he was stationed there as a German soldier in 1944/5. He was a truck driver pulling a 8.8 flak gun.
Is your father still alive!? Sir!! your dad is a living part off ww2 history sir! I bet your father has lots off ww2 memorabilia and lots off old time wermacht soldiers life and his war experience story.. You need to record and documented them all bro..your dad being an important person or not during war dont matter, because your dad is part off ww2 history.. You are lucky to hv a father who is a ww2 vet. Respect and salute to your father.❤
Thank you for your kind words. My father passed away in 2009. In his old age he participated several times in commemoration acts with other former German and American soldiers in this area. When I was a child we would spend our vacation visiting military cemeteries of all nations between Cologne and the D-Day beaches. Memorabilia? Not really. I think most people just wanted to forget that time and get rid of its accessories then.
@@fosphor8920 Its true though. Before D Day, tank crews given the choice of the 76 or the 75, usually chose the 75, because the lower velocity high explosive shell had more explosive, and produced more destructive blast than the HE from the high velocity gun. Since most Shermans hardly ever fired at another tank, they usually fired at fixed positions, bunkers, infantry, buildings, light vehicles etc, and for all these targets, the 75 was the better gun. Out of curiosity, do you usually dismiss facts that disagree with your world view as copium?
@@fosphor8920 No facts. Reports from the actual crews. Many did not want to switch to the 76mm from the 75 bc they were not playing world of tanks, but were fighting the German Wehrmacht. the 75mm has much more HE and shrapnel lethality and when supporting infantry and taking out anti-tank guns this was preferred and more effective. Facts don't care about your feelings or World of Tanks.
After the Normandy campaign Eisenhower ordered all Sherman tanks coming over be 76mm armed. The Tank Destroyers already were 76mm armed. But all those 75mm armed Shermans were used till the surrender
I don’t know why people get so caught up with this. America got Sherman tanks, crews, maintenance crews, fuel, motor oil, spare parts and ammunition on ships and sent them all over the world in numbers large enough to win.
...but in Europe against the German cats, the Shermans were target practice for the panzers lying in wait, and thousands of GI's paid with their lives for Patton's folly.
Exactly. It was a middleweight vs a heavyweight vs a Tiger, but that's why they called in air support and artillery. People with fragile egos just like to argue on the internet
There was a small battle during the Ardenne, when a single Jagtiger, in an ideal ambush position, caught a few dozen Shermans advancing across a large open field. The destruction of Shermans only stopped when the Jagtiger ran out of ammunition.....leaving behind a scene of utter carnage.
That sounds like the stuff of hour long documentaries, I have to wonder why "Greatest tank battles" never even mentioned it, but I guess you could fill volumes with what they never mentioned.
@@robertmaybeth3434 I remember reading it in a book, cant remember which one. From the allied perspective, like the famous "tiger fever" incident in Normandy, they would not have been eager to make public such a disaster. Just like all the other unpleasant and inconvenient things they covered up.........like Operation "Keelhaul".
What has always mystified me is why panzer ll, lll and lVs had such slow turning turrets. Surely, this was a major design fault if the tank cannot manoeuvre fast enough with its tracks and its gun can only pivot at the glacial pace of 11 degrees per second?
The 76 was shortened so the turret didn’t need to be enlarged with a counterweight. That dropped muzzle velocity from 3900 to 3400 ft/sec and assured that the AP round couldn’t penetrate German armor. A bad decision back home killed a lot of tankers in the ETO. A similar situation to the Navy’s Mark XIV torpedo.
I don't like Lend-Lease. It's a business case getting out money from someone fighting the same opponent. I don't know, how long GB and RU had to pay back, can it be 2006?
@TheWizard-vv1zy war is a business. A dirty, bloody business. However, Lend-Lease pretty much helped get Soviet logistics back up and running. They even liked a lot of the stuff given to them. They liked the Matilda, Valentine, and Churchill tanks.They definitely liked the Shermans given to them. They even liked the P-38 Lightning. But they hated the M3 Lee, and I don’t blame them.
Forget the name of the book, but read one that was published when the USSR collapsed written by a Soviet tanker who had written it years earlier. One bit I recall was when the Ford rep (the factory had reps there to see what needed adjusting in the production line, for example they were diesels) asked the men if they were getting the presents sent by the factory workers. Nothing reached them at the front. Then when they received new tanks and were cleaning out all the packing grease from the barrels out fell bottles of whiskey. The factory workers had found a way to sneak the presents past everyone down the line.
@TheWizard-vv1zy Russia refused to pay. Britain was forced to sell off much of its assets in what amounted to give sale prices to settle the debt, which came due almost immediately on the cessation of hostilities.😊
Another advantage in the German's favor was their superior gun optics. They could see hit farther with better accuracy than the US. Those US tank crews who switched to the Pershing's notice a huge improvement with that tank's gun optics, that made for greater accuracy at longer ranges
On the other hand despite the clarity of German optics the layout of the German range estimation method is generally seen as harder to read. Same with the ergonomics of the tank turret wher German vehicles put the loader to the right of the gun which committed two sins because that made the loader use their left hand to push the shell into the breech and it's more efficient for the commander to be sitting behind the gunner for better communication.
It is interesting to note, that the Panzer 4, the most common German Tank, was armed with a long barreled 75mm gun. So the round fired from it was going much faster when it left the barrel. The British also armed the Cromwell with a long barreled 75mm gun. Plus, the British installed some long barreled 17 pounders on about 400 Sherman tanks, thus creating the Sherman Firefly. The US never did catch on to this idea.
I recently saw a video that claimed the 75mm of the Panther was a more deadly gun than the 88mm of the Tiger, is that truly the case I don't know but it was something I never heard before
@@JIMIIXTLAN The Panther's gun had slightly better penetration at short and medium ranges, the Tiger I's slightly better at long ranges. The Tiger also had a much more powerful HE round and could carry more ammo. The Tiger's gun also had a much longer barrel life (6000 vs 2000 rounds) due to its lower velocity. The Tiger II's gun is of course in a different category altogether, but had even shorter barrel life (1200 rounds) than the Panther's.
The British did not arm the Cromwell with a long 75mm, but its followup, the Comet, with a new 3-inch high velocity gun called the 77 HV, which could fire the same shells a the 17 pdr.
Well the Americans caught on eventually it was primarily because of the same reason why they did not take the offer of using british invented and designed specialist engineer armoured vehicles to help clear minefields, destroy bunkers, british bridlayer) and lots of other specialist tanks , The most deadly was the Crocodile flamethrower tank, the most effective bunker destroyer in ww2 , nope didn't want it. all these Tanks mostly based on a sherman chassis , they were the brainchild of a British officer, major General Percy Hobart ,all the vehicles were nicknamed ''Hobart's funnies'' these were employed by the british the 79th specialist armoured division created in ww2 , before the Normandy invasion and canadians too, at sword, gold ,juno, these specialist engineering tanks the first of its kind and what is referred to in modern terms as REME Royal Engineers and copied by the US military as ''Sappers'' they stormed the beaches of normandy, and took on the german beach defences, obstacles concrete gun emplacements, destroying it and clearing a path for british and canadian soldiers, this reduced the british and canadian casualties, unlike the americans forces landing at Omaha, they did begrungley accept the british DD floatation tanks, a sherman tank that could swim basically, unfortunately for the americans they released their tanks to far away and the majority sank the odd few that made it, were too few to stop the slaughter, a passing US destroyer USS Frankford saved the day by knocking out the german guns that had pinned down the entire US forces at Omaha, all because they the americans were too proud to accept help from the british it was not made in america . all true .
@@soultraveller5027 I know about the USS Frankford, it got in so close it scrapped off the sonar thingie that was under the ship. The USS Texas, at least I think it was the Texas. Flooded its torpedo belt so it could get more elevation on its guns. I know it was one of the battleships. I also know all about those special tanks the British made.
@@Fuxerz German overengineering is a myth created by some influencers. Overengineering might be interesting when it comes to mass production. The old Wehrmacht records show that the maintenance quote was normal. The decisive point is that the tanks were worn out against the quantity of the allied tanks.
I saw that it took 3000 hours to build a Tiger, but only 300 to build a Sherman. Shermans were relatively simple and easy to repair. The German tanks were great, but difficult to repair.
@@jurgenmuller143-i don't know......having to take off all those road wheels on the Panther to change one was overly complicated. Keeping it simple helped the Sherman and the T-34........
American equipment faced German equipment German equipment faced Russian equipment with the same results generally it was a manufacturing using equipment That was inferior in design yet far superior in availability and reliability
The blame for US forces fighting the Germans with an inadequate tank can be lain squarely at the feet of General Lesley McNair who for some strange reason thought that tanks would not end up fighting each other! This resulted in the inadequate armour and firepower of the Sherman and a huge loss of life amongst American tank crews. He even tried to stop the development of the Pershing tank that squared the odds for Americans facing Tigers and Panthers. The tragic fact was that the additional inch of armour that was eventually fitted to the front of the 'Jumbo' variant of the Sherman meant they could withstand direct frontal hits from 88mm shells with the loss of only 3-4 mph in speed. Bizarrely McNair was killed in a friendly fire incident in July 1944.
The mantra that the Sherman tank was better because there was many more of them is the best argument that it was an inferior tank. If it takes 4 or 5 tanks to overcome an enemy's tank, probably means it's not a good tank.
The Sherman was a medium tank made in mass qualities. It supplied the british the french the polish all the allied nations including the soviet union. It was definitely more reliable than German tanks. It was a medium tank going up against heavy tanks and didn't have a chance. But for the overall picture it was the perfect tank at the perfect time when the allies needed something. Remember the americans came out with the Pershing tank. A real heavy tank with a 90mm main gun. To little to late.
5 місяців тому
"Quantity has a quality all of its own" - Josef Stalin.
The one-on-one tank comparisions many use to rate the relative capabilities of WW2 Allied vs German tank models aren't very useful. All US tanks operated in mutually supporting 5 tank platoons, not because it cost that many to knock out a Tiger, but to outmanuver and outflank it using deploying 1-2 tanks to engage and fix the target, while the others outflanked and engaged its weaker side armor.
Lot of interesting info but way off on so many aspects.The standard German medium, the Panzer IV did not have wider tracks than the Sherman, nor more direct frontal armour! The Sherman had 430 mm wide tracks, the Panzer IV was up to 400 mm. The Sherman had 50.8 mm armour at 57 degrees, equivalent to 93 mm horizontal, the Panzer IV went up to 80 mm flat on the better versions. The Pz IV did have a better gun, and was a lighter vehicle, but that came with shortcomings, too, they were well balanced really. Also the 75 mm M3 gun in the Sherman wasn't short barrel or low-velocity, it was more medium of both accounts but closer to high-velocity than low. Additional: mentioned was the 2nd Armoured losing 70% of tanks to combat or repair between July and August, but the German equivalents they faced lost between 90 and 100% of their tanks at the same time... At the conclusion of this battle, the US lost 18 medium tanks and 7 light, 25 tanks total, and the Germans lost 17 tanks mixed of medium and heavy. Not quite as bad and decisive as the claim of "US tanks being outclassed" or"obsolete"...
@@LoraxOfLiberty Not when you take the M4's sloped glacis into consideration. Plus side hull and turret armor is thicker on the M4 than on the Panzer IV.
To the narrator: It's not an artillery barge, it's a barrage! One is a float to carry goods on water, the other is a concentrated volume of projectiles..
@@williamsmith3051 I don't think so. If you are interested in the subject enough to pull all this information and work together, is the right word that high a hurdle?
0:37 Puffendorf is actually in Westphalia, west of the Rhine river. The allies didn't start crossing the river into the Rhineland until March at Remagen. Interestingly enough the 7th Armored division was hanging out in Puffdorf and nearby Ubach on 16 December when the Battle of the Bulge started. Cheers!
It is in the modern-day state of Northrhine-Westphalia, but in the former province of Rhineland. The former province of Westphalia is east of the Rhine river, Puffendorf is west.
There is no myth of American armor. The Sherman had barely 50mm of armor plate in the front. It wasn't made to slug it out with German battle tanks. That is what the destroyers were for. The Sherman was mainly designed for infantry support and it excelled in that roll. The British removed the short barrel 75mm then put a big gun onto it and the firefly was born. Had the war gone on another year or 2 we might have seen a tank battle worth seeing had a company of American M36 Pershings ran into a German battle group of big cats. Both having the fuel and ammunition to fight it out until a victor emerged.
@@robertschumann7737I suggest you watch the tank fest video yourself. The chieftain makes a very compelling case. And no the Sherman was doctrinally used to fight tanks. The tank destroyers were held in reserve.
No sherman had a chance against a veteran SS commander..such as barkmann...he was aware of the panthers strengths and weakness.and avoided any flank threats
Allyboos say its a myth and propaganda despite tons of footage evidence. The cope is that German tankers exaggerated to please Hitler. But we have evidence that our own boys thought the German armor was superior and it was especially at a distance.
My Dad was in the 772 tank destroyer battalion. They had 90 mm. He said they would blow the tracks off the German tanks if they couldnt get them sideways.
A common mistake made in this documentary is a simple comparison of armour thickness. While the Pz IV did have marginally thicker armour than the Sherman, the fact that the Sherma's armour was sloped meant that effectively the Sherman's armour was thicker. He also ignores that fact that ther Sherman was modified during the war, for example, the M4A3E8 had considerably thicker armour than tne Pz IV and it was sloped to boot, the sherman jumbo M4A3E2 had even thicker armour than the Panther or the tiger, and the tiger's armour was not sloped. Frontal armour on the Tiger was 100mm, frontal armour of the jumbo was 140mm and sloped, and the Panther's side and rear armour was was only 30mm, later upgraded to 40mm, easily penetrated by even the 75mm AP shells of Shermans. This documentary does what most do, and assumes all Shermans, throughout the war, were the early M4 or M4A1.
Darrylleeroberts yes, true German armored plates from 1942 to 45 there Tiger 1/2 Tanks, Panther 5, Panzer 3/4, Stug, Jagtigers and Hetzer tank destroyers will more likely penetrate and spalled by A.P and High explosive shells, because there plates lack of an important metallic alloy form Sweden that strength there steel. There case of 12th armoured division unit with destroying three Panther 5 tanks frontal with 75mm gun M4 tanks and Jagtiger by using a star shell hit the engine scaring the German crew to abandon the Tank Destroyer got mow down by .50 MG on the M4 tank, the key thing about if your on the offensive you will liking be ambush by the enemy, if the enemy is on the offensive you will ambush them heavy loss amoured are expected in battle if your on the offensive because of surprised and disorganization during a ambush.
@@ronaldgrove3283 Both is true. Sherman frontal armor was well sloped and could occasionally withstand a Pz IV or StuG. Panther and Tiger II usually had no problem penetrating. But there weren't too man Panthers and Tigers around. And Sherman was very tall; not much less than Panther or Tiger II. The area around Puffendorf is flat (slightly sloping towards North), open farmland which enables long-range engagements; clearly an advantage for German tanks.
@darylleeroberts, No M4A3E8 Shermans at Puffendorf and few Jumbos. You are guilty of the same thing the narrator did. You said the Tiger I had 100mm front armour but ignored the angling (24 degrees on the lower front plate and 10 degrees in the upper front plate) and it's Brinell Hardness of 265. Together, this actually gave the Tiger Is front armour an EFFECTIVE thickness of circa 115mm to 130mm. Source. Thomas L Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks. At Puffendorf it was King Tigers of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 anyway. Not Tiger Is.
Not many Shermans (none in WW2) had gyrostabilisation 3:05. Even the early Pershing didn't. The first widely deployed and effective gyrostabilisation was the Centurion.
The effectiveness of the Sherman is such a thorny issue. We can understand and empathize with Sherman tank crews who said negative things about it in the heat of battle; i.e. when you see your buddies getting killed / 75mm HE rounds bouncing off of enemy tanks its hard not to feel the way they did. But if we look at the Sherman from a greater perspective, it really was the best all around tank of the war. Easy to manufacture, ship to Europe, easy to maintainen and repair with less moving parts than German tanks, fits on narrow bridges, highly maneuverable once you picked up a little speed (not as maneuverable from a dead stop), faster turret rotation rate, far superior transmission and escapability than the Soviet T34. It's high profile could also mean the difference in spotting the enemy first which becomes a huge advantage once Sherman crews became more experienced. What many Sherman crews didn't know were some of the more serious issues with German tanks - WAY over engineered, a lot more moving parts means more stuff that can break and more parts you have to stock in your supply chain, TERRIBLE problems with their straight drive train gears breaking constantly with heavier Panther and Tiger tanks, slower turret rotation rate and sluggish acceleration from a dead stop. U.S. tank destroyers also kept the situation being worse than it was. Yeah, I know that there were issues with deploying them in battle in a timely manner but like with everything else, as the war ground on the Americans got better tactically with leveraging the Sherman's strengths as well as with how they deployed tank destroyers. By the end of 1944 into 1945 is where you start to see American tank tactics greatly improve with experience.
When they designed the Sherman, data suggested that it would be in Tank vs Tank about %15. of encounters. By the end of the war, it was %13. When armchair worriers bitch about the Sherman, they ignore the use it was designed for.
A good standard tank should have a gun that have a reasonable good chance of dealing with all known threats - from infantry to heavy tanks. Even the smaller, older and 30% lighter Panzer IV had that. The Sherman not. The lack of AT capability was what US tankers complained most about.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Siempre en un contexto de neta supremacia numerica donde por caso un 18 libras (proyectil exelente en la funcion AT) daba en el blanco. Digo por caso pues el Firfly, Wolverine y el Valentine equipado con 18 libras (no recuerdo como se llamaba esa cosa) eran plataformas totalmennte ligeras e inestables para el 18 libras. No por nada los ingleses desarrollaron para el el Centurion, creo que pesaba 62 toneladas.
@patsmith8523 The Germans built more tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers in 1944 than in any other year. It's just that they were faced with far more enemy forces as the war progressed.
The Grizzly I was a Canadian-built M4A1 Sherman tank with relatively minor modifications, primarily to stowage and pioneer tool location and adding accommodations for a Number 19 radio set.
The 75mm gun was kept because 99% of a tanks duty is infantry support and the HE round is the main round fired. The 75mm HE round was excellent for this and did well, the armor piercing ammo was good but not great. It could destroy a Tiger 1 from the sides or back, as well as a Panther, but couldnt handle the front armor. This was worked around by sending them out in groups to swarm, youll lose a couple Shermans but others get around the Tiger and take it out. Shermans were easily repaired/replaced, Tigers were not. Thats why they kept using it, the assembly lines were solid pumping out new ones daily, similar to what the Russians did beat the enemy by outproducing them.
By the latter part of 1944 German armour for its tanks was not as reliable as it had been due to Allied bombing of the various factories that produced the tanks , it was more brittle due to the weaker alloys used in its manufacture , which meant that it could not afford the ( full ) protection given to crews in earlier years
@@TTTT-oc4eb Look at the Battle of the Bulge - a lot of the Tigers didn't even make it to the battlefield because they broke down even before taking damage. I''m finding a
The M4 Sherman with the 50mm short canon could penetrate the side and rear armor, true, but within 200 meters it could penetrate any tank armor. The advantage of the 76 long was it achieved more acceleration, so in close the 75 short was as good as any other.
My dad drove a Sherman. He carried extra white phosphorus shells. The AP didn't work that well, but it was easy to set them on fire because they were typically smeared with grease.
All in all the brave men who new they were Outgunned most of the time in their shermans has to be admired I really can't comprehend how it must have felt knowing Those beasts were out there targeting them.
Correction: even today Puffendorf is not a small town. It's three houses, 5 farms, one church and a pub. The crossroads was of some importance. 2nd Armor couldn't have much experience fighting Tigers, because this was probably the first time they actually met some. And these were Tiger II.
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. Special thanks to veteran soldiers/civilians sharing personal information/combat experiences. Thru diaries memoirs enabling historians to replicate those stories. For future generations to better appreciate the hard ships/sacrifices suffered by the tank crews. Fighting/perishing/ surviving knowing certain death/debilitating wounds were often times possible. Yet still advanced forward regardless of the consequences. True grit style determination to succeed!!!
I think the German Panzer general Heinz Guderian wrote or said that the engine of the tank was as important as its gun. The Shermans ran longer (better tracks too) than the German tanks, I believe. Best tank of the war in my opinion. As one response notes, tanks were used as mobile artillery and against enemy troops. Destroying enemy tanks according to US army doctrine was the role of the tank destroyers such as the M10 and the excellent M18 with its special antitank ammo.
Some of the beliefs here are myths or without context. The M4 75mm was a shorter round with a larger HE component than the German 75mm. The Sherman was better at taking out pillboxes, bunkers, and gun emplacements than it's German opponents. The larger tank treads gave better floation (less ground pressure) making it easier to deal with mud or snow. However, they put extra torque on the transmission and drive train. German heavy tanks like the Tiger and Panther already had transmission issues and would burn them out faster than the PzIV. The PzIV and PzIII were what the Sherman fought against the various assault guns/TDs (Hetzer and Jagdpanzer). Tiger and Panther encounters were extremely rare. And it turned out that the 76mm could take them out just fine. However, the more powerful 76mm unpopular since it was an AP round and not an HE round which was better for supporting infantry. While the 2nd Div lost half of their tanks, the Germans lost all of theirs. The fighting was mostly close quarters in the tight streets and ambushes.
Dmitry Loza loved the lend lease Shermans that he commanded on the Eastern Front, preferring them even to the T-34. He notes their reliability, their cross country capability and their comparative stealth as tactical assets. He found ways to prevail over supposedly superior German weapons. Check out his book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks.
According to British tankers the Sherman’s most important asset was the rate of fire it could achieve. Sure this does not apply in all circumstances but smoke , AP and phosphorous could aid in confusing the enemy to destruction. They relate that panzerfaust were continually killing them. Despite the Sherman’s many capabilities some US army officers were moved to despair at their under armed and armoured machines being employed almost suicidally when appropriate improvements should have arrived on the battlefield 9 months earlier .
I have to wonder how, and why wasn't the Pershing tank fast-tracked to get them to Europe sooner than they did. Of all people, General Patton surely knew of the massive imbalance of power between the Shermans and the German cats and only he was in a position to do anything meaningful to address the problem! Even if Pershings had been rushed into service after D-day (and had the inevitable problems of new equipment they were certain to have), hundreds of American tankers would have had improved protection on the battlefield at the very least!
Many of the commanders didn't even want the 76mm, citing Gen. McNair's vision that tanks shouldn't be going head-to-head in the first place, that was Tank Destroyer Doctrine, but they forgot to tell the Germans that they shouldn't attack our tanks with theirs. The brass think more with dollar signs, and "That's not how we did it in the old days", than they do with with soldier's lives, so it takes a while to get it across to them that the moms back home would much rather they field a tank that can be on equal footing, than one that it took the destruction of four so the fifth can get in a killing blow. The Pershing would have made a big difference if it had been brought in a few months (or a year) earlier.
@ robertmaybeth3434 Two words, Atlantic Ocean. It was extremely difficult for them to get over there in large numbers. Then you have the Pershings reliability and mechanical issues.
My grandpa was a Sherman driver, 3rd Armored Division, in combat from from June '44 to Jan. '45. He said one of their biggest gripes was how the German vehicles & equipment were usually superior, & yet still received noticeable improvements, occasionally big ones, while the US stuff did so painfully slowly, or not at all. The US process for approval & implementation of better things usually took a backseat to cranking out huge numbers of marginally acceptable equipment, & our troops took lots of unnecessary casualties because of it. He said the disparities in gun & armor performance between the two sides was so glaringly obvious & disturbingly huge, it did more to promote fear & hurt morale than most anything else.
This video is of much better quality than the majority of WW2 videos on UA-cam. Nevertheless it suffers from two failings. 1. It's written from the USA side only. For example: - The narrator tells us exactly the name of every USA unit involved, but not the German ones. He mentions "9th panzer division" once only. It's like he is reading the American battle reports and nothing else. In fact there was a Tiger unit in this battle, the 506 Heavy Tank Battalion. I will come back to them in a moment. - The narrator discusses the American tanks and SPGs at some length, explaining the different guns and ammunition they used. But he doesn't cover the Germans in the same detail. I don't recall him even saying the name of the German "88", which was critical to this battle. 2. The narrator seems to think that two distinct German tanks are the same tank! From the very start of the video, he repeatedly mentions "Tigers", which generally means the Tiger I. Several times he shows us footage of the Tiger I. He also tells us that the Americans had experience in fighting "Tigers" in France, which seems unlikely. A serious historian discovered that Americans in NW Europe almost never met the Tiger I. As I said, there was a Tiger unit in this battle, but they didn't have any Tiger 1 tanks at the time. They were equipped with a different tank, the King Tiger. At 11:16 the narrator starts to mention King Tigers and show us pictures of them. He gives no explanation about why he switched from one tank to the other. He never explains that they were two different vehicles.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Wrong. Look at Normandy and the German reserves. Look where they had to go and what was in their way Oh I forgot, there was only Americans fighting in Normandy This is one seriously hacked off Brit who is fed up of comments like this I suppose you know that the King Tiger (3 of them) appeared in Normandy before it appeared in Russia?
The M4 medium tanks M3 75mm cannon could fire AP ammution capable of penetrating the side armor of any German tank at 800m. Keep in mind the US M4s tanks were specialized for infantry support, and backed up by specialized tank destroyer units armed more powerful 3" (M10), 76.2mm (M18), and ultimately 17 pdr upgunned M10 (Achilles, UK) and 90mm (M36) high velocity antitank cannons.
German recollections are informative here, Allied air power dictated their situation and forced tactical compromises as well as making preserving their AFV's prior to battle a priority. At that stage of the war they were basically trying to hold defensive lines until overwhelming firepower forced them back.
Absolutely correct. Although allied air power was only directly responsible for a comparatively small number of German tanks destroyed, allied air power most definitely greatly hampered the movements of German armour.
@@lyndoncmp5751 IWM "From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products. Only in 1944 was British industry able to deliver a tank reasonably fit for a fast-moving battlefield, and even then it was scarcely a match for its opponents." Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks During The Second World War page
The battle of Puffendorf was similar in many ways to the battle of Arracourt, remnants of German armour came under sustained air attack before the tanks moved in. It is therefore impossible to tell if the German tanks were destroyed from air or ground. However US tanks were under-gunned, the 76 was only marginally better than the old 75mm. US doctrine dictated enemy tanks should only be engaged by Tank Destroyers, so all the 76mm HVAP ammo was reserved for them.
Nah, similar in some ways, maybe. The German crews at Puttendorf were obviously much better trained than the young kids at Arracourt. And there were no Tigers at Arracourt. And no M36s, or (probably) 76mm Shermans. And seemingly little air support. Also, unlike Arracourt, the kill ratio was definitely in German favor.
@@TTTT-oc4eb The issue is that it was a relatively small battle not well recorded. My only reference was from Operation Queen which states only 20-25 German tanks at Puffendorf from 9th SS. While US 2nd AD lost 58 Shermans
Yep it's called Combined Arms. A Sherman 75 could take out a Tiger from the flank. The 76 was superior armor penetration to the 75. The 75 had better HE and that's why it was preferred.
Great video of tank on tank action!! Reminded me of the movie with tanker Telly Savalas driving his sherman back to US lines totall destroyed with no turret, cant remember the name of it.
The British 17 pounder was offered to the Americans, and refused - a case of "not invented here" syndrome? The 17 pounder was better than the German 75mm and their 88mm.
No, 80% of tank combat was not against other thanks. The 75mm had a better high explosive round - I believe the shrapnel dispersed better. I think it was standard to have 3 M4s and 1 Firefly in a tank platoon, so the US didn't refuse either.
About 2,000 M4s (Firefly IC) and M4A4s (Firefly VC) were re-armed by the British in 1944 with the 17-pounder. Fireflys were used by Britain, Poland, and Canada. In late 1944, 88 M4s and M4A3s were upgraded with the 17-pounder gun at the request of the US Army, a small handful being issued the Italian theatre.@@recoil53
Like the ability to knock out German heavies? Why did they accept the Sherman with its even greater drawbacks - such as the propensity to burst into flames. Called "Tommy cookers" by the Germans and "Ronsons" [from the fag lighter ad: "One strike and it's alight"] by the British and Canadians.@@brennanleadbetter9708
if your strategic, economic, and logistics decisions mean that you only have mediocre tanks, then you had better use operations and tactics accordingly. nothing wrong with the shermans. they were great tanks, and definitely the right ones for that army. but it's guaranteed that they could not slug it out with the german armour, so therefore, it was necessary to always have OTHER anti-tank capacity on hand.
The Germans were known to refer to the Sherman tank as the 'tommy cooker'. I noticed one Sherman in the video with a portion of track on the front... smart fellows...some track on the sides and a longer barrel might have saved a few allied tankers.
@@stephenoneill245 - You are incorrect. Tommy cooker was a term applied to ALL tanks in the desert, that got VERY hot in the sun. Zippo was never used during the war, and at its worst, the M4 family did not brew up any more often than any other medium tank, and after wet stowage was introduced, the M4 was the LEAST likely tank to catch fire. Tanks catch fire not because of gasoline (German and British tanks all used gasoline, only Soviets had any large number of diesel AFVs), but due to ammunition, especially the PROPELLANT, was penetrated by AP hits. So, not one thing you mentioned is in the least true.
Having checked Wiikipedia, I can say the following: Zippo was unfortunately used after all. "Ronson" was the nickname for the flamethrower version. There is no mention that "Tommy Kocher" originated from desert temperatures. Fires were caused by ammunition cook-offs that also ignited the engine. Wet stowage to combat this was only installed from 1944. @@coachhannah2403
In Lend-Lease the US sent a considerable number of Shermans to the Red Army. The Soviets considered the US tank to first rate. In the final Russian Campaign the US sent between 300-400 Sherman tanks to Vladivostok. They played a big part in the USSR’s push into Manchuria.
Shermans were the U.S.'s normal way of fighting a war. Quantity over quality. It doesn't matter how inferior the equipment is just get it out there. Lives were used as fodder because the cheaper the cost more can be produced and overwhelm them with numbers. It doesn't matter how many lives are sacrificed needlessly just keep sending them.
@@Me-fm9zknot surprising . We had a country 30 times larger with unlimited resources against a country the size of Oregon with hardly any oil or fuel capability. They also took on Russia 60+ times bigger and more resources. Like a gorilla beating up a fox . Something to celebrate but not brag about.
Allied tank crews had the lowest casualty rate of any Allied ground forces, only around 2%. So it seems likely the Shermans were not the death traps some critics try to label them as.
Tank vs tank conflicts were very rare in Europe during WW2. 99% of the time Sherman tanks were used as mechanized infantry support, provide line of sight artillery during advances.
They absolutely weren't rare for GERMAN tank crews. While British and American tankers weren't faced with a plethora of German tanks all along the front lines, the same cannot be said for German tankers. German tanks absolutely faced a plethora of British, American and especially Soviet tanks literally everywhere they were deployed, and they had to deal with them.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Germans were largely on the defensive from 1943 onward with the Battle of Kursk and Ardennes being the sole exceptions. Early in the war they used their Panzers most effectively in the manner I described-mobile artillery in conjunction with their mechanized infantry groups. This was very effective and the Germans deployed mainly light and medium tanks-just as the Allied armies did later in the war. When Germany went on the Defensive, they shifted to heavy tanks that were used largely as Tank/Armored Vehicle destroyers at points where the Wehrmacht anticipated Allied advances. This was less effective for several reasons which have been discussed many times, the main point being tanks are intended to be mobile artillery-using them as static defenses doesn't take advantage of their optimum capability. America made the correct decision to focus on the M-4 Sherman medium tank, which fulfilled it's mission the vast majority of the time. The sole exception was those rare occurrences when they went toe to toe with German heavy tanks-and that only happened rarely.
Tank vs tank wasn't rare. The Germans deployed 1837 Panthers, 1666 Panzer IV, 1650 StuG III and 406 Tigers on the Western Front, the vast majority of these from May 1944. And as one US tank commander said: "What really preyed on my mind was to run into a well handled unit of Panthers". Armchair generals tend to forget the sheer mental effect of fighting against vastly superior opponents.
@@pimpompoom93726 They didn't shift to heavy tanks when on the defensive - both the Tiger I/II and Panther were designed while Germany was still riding the wave. They were the the result of their experiences in Poland, France, Barbarossa and Bleu - when they realised that even the standard tanks had to be able to take on any known threat, from infantry to heavy tanks. The Tiger was a heavy breakthrough tank and never meant to be used as a defensive anchor.
I personally don't like "outnumbering". What does it mean? It means, that many of Shermans approaching Panthers or Tigers cannot pierce their armour unless in range, whilst the 7,5 and 8,8 knocks them out. Finally, the amount of Shermans fight them down, which at first sight doesn't look that bad. Now we have a crew of 5 sitting in that Sherman tin can, coming on in huge numbers. Maintainability or reliability ain't an asset for them, once they're hit, they burn to ashes. The point is, the US did not enhance the model but simply the output of that outclassed thing, truly knowing that they doom their own people. The Germans (Panzer IV - long barrel, Panzer V and VI) and the Russians (T34-85), protected their crews by adding armour and a comparable gun.
The Sherman was the best medium tank of WW2. World of Tanks has people thinking tank on tank engagements happened regularly. Tank on tank engagements simply didn’t happen on a regular basis. Defensive anti-tank guns knocked out far more offensive tanks. In fact what is the difference between a 75mm anti tank gun and a panther in a static position? Absolutely nothing. World of Tanks has people thinking unrealistic things.
Tank crews were more likely to survive a knockout to a Sherman than in any other WW2 tank. Spring loaded hatches and safe ammo storage made more difference to them
The Sherman was constantly updated. The Sherman out preformed the T-34 drastically in Korea. Tank on tank engagements simply did not happen with any regularity on the Western Front in WW2. When large scale tank on tank engagements happened on the Western Front the Sherman did very well. The Panther and Tiger are heavy tanks, the Sherman is a medium tank. The vast VAST majority of offensive allied tanks were knocked out by anti-tank guns or munitions like the PanzerFaust.
During the war, the Sherman got a new gun, a new turret, a new engine, and eventually wide treads. Postwar, the Israelis modified Shermans, first with a high-velocity 75mm (M50) and later with a low-velocity 105mm (M51). It was a very adaptable design.
The Sherman was designed for infantry support not tank on tank fighting, also it had to light enough to be shipped over seas, the shear numbers of tanks by the allies defeated the German armor which was better than the allied armor.. can’t beat numbers
That's 100% true, however they were used to engage German tanks. I've listened to interviews of tankers and they felt great about their tanks until coming up against the German big cats finding they were fighting in inferior tanks. The Germans however laughed at the Shermans.
Not quite true, it was expected to fight tanks - Panzer II and short-barreled Panzer IV - but not the likes of Tiger and Panther, not even the upgunned and uparmored Panzer IV.
Lol the 75mm Sherman was obsolete by mid 1944? Was it obsolete to all the German infantry it came across that didnt have a tank or any heavy weapons that couldnt take it out from a distance? Tank on tank battles were rare on the Western front most us tanks were destoyed by anto tank guns most german tanks broke down on their own or taken out by planes and artillery.
The "Steel and Fire" text on the thumbnail for this video caught my attention--let me explain: My late father was a heavy machine gunner (MOS 605) in C Company, 163rd Engineer (Combat) Battalion who survived the war, despite an MOS with a life-expectancy of mere minutes in combat, from his landing at Utah Beach not long after D-Day through to the end of hostilities. A source of Dad's pride in performance of American forces, and a recurring point of many of his war stories, was American's freedom and ability to employ individual initiative and innovation to adapt to challenges on the battlefield. From an elevated position overlooking Bitche, France, my father witnessed an inventive tank crew defeat a "superior" German tank. The German commander, evidently confident and relying upon his weapon's defensive armor, held a static position among the town's buildings, but could not train his gun quickly enough to land a shot upon the Sherman that was popping out of cover at various points and quickly firing upon the German tank (I don't know the model, though I seem to recall my father saying that it mounted an 88MM gun if that helps identify it). Watching the engagement, my father was initially frustrated at the American's poor marksmanship, as the gunner continually over-shot the enemy tank. After a few such rounds (how many is another detail departed along with my parent) it dawned upon my father what the American was up to. Sure enough, a final strategic round slammed into the building in front of which the German tank had taken its position. The collapsing building buried the enemy tank under a mound of masonry rubble, which American infantry (Dad believed they were Nisei troops) saturated with Molotov cocktails, making a horrid end for the trapped German tank crew.
G.K. U.S.A The 17 pounders in our Shermans destroyed a company Tiger 1s. One of the German tank comanders was the tank ace Michael Witman. One shot from The Firefly Sherman destroyed the Tiger and its crew. It was an 800 yard shot. Michael Witman and his Company were talented and brave men whose sacrifice was worthy of a better cause. I have to give The Brits credit for their wise decision to hybridize a tank. U.S. top brass dropped the ball on this one. There were a number of obvious boneheaded decisions made by the British and American brass that lengthed the war and prevented the Allies from reaching the Polish border.
Did this battle have some night engagements? I recall reading that Panthers with Infrared sights knocked out US tanks. They worked with an IR searchlight- equipped halftrack (skfd 251 "Uhu") that illuminated a large area.
I was impressed about how the Germans managed to field their infra-red "Vampyr" system by 1945, it was a truly revolutionary development in warfare especially when mounted on a tank. But in practice the Vampyr usually proved more trouble than it was worth. Infra-red lights and viewers were surely some futuristic stuff, but in concept more than actual practice. Because in essence what you had, was a relatively short range spotlight that could only be seen by the appropriate viewer. Think of shining a spot-light of comparable power on your target - that's basically all you had. The range of Vampyr couldn't have been much more than 100 meters and if you were that close, your opponent would hear you long before he ever saw you regardless of what you were viewing him with.
The Uhu was an air defense searchlight on a half-track, it had a range around 1 km. The lights on the tank system were very short ranged, which was why the Uhu was developed.
German tanks often could not be repaired in the field. A tank that was returned to the factory for repairs isn’t helpful, no matter how powerful it is.
Takes courage,discipline and balls of tungsten to go head on With German heavy tanks in defensive position.By 1944,American tank doctrine of tank destroyers and medium tanks to support infantry breakthrougs was all theory,paid with massive losses.The French,the Britts and the Soviets committed the same errors.
I'm Polish. My father was a tank company commander (T-72 in 80' and 90'). He used to repeat me on many occasions: an army is a system composed by a bunch of the systems and so on. The best tank that German had was Panzer III. It was also the most common German armour, because Stug where based on Panzer III. Soviet in 1940 made a test of 2 Panzer III they bought and they arrived to the conclusion than it was better than T-34.
The other Sherman advantage was, to quote The Cheiftain, "it was there" and often in numbers. It doesn't matter how good a Tiger or a Panther is, if they are overwhelmed by a force of medium tanks likes the Sherman they were in trouble, especially if there was a 76mm or a Firefly in the stick.
A considerable amount of footage I'd never seen before.
Some of this footage is staged. A Hollywood movie? Training film? German propaganda? Example: 8:10
I lived in Juelich in mid-1980s and used to ride my bike through Puffendorf, Immendorf, Gereonsweiler etc. Many villages still had pockmarks and other visible reminders of the battles there.
I wonder if such war damage is in some cases preserved as a reminder and token od the battles fought there?
If desired, I suppose they could have been repaired and the damage hidden. Or perhaps they simply hadn't gotten around to that.
There seems to be a lot of footage, documents that contradict your statement
Would it be more accurate that most tank on tank battles start from the previously mentioned caverly style engagements?
Armored cavelry was the original purpose and doctrine of
The us army after WW1 prior to and during WW2?
Have you thought of sharing what you have seen tours photos ECT.?
@SeattlePioneer
40% of allied armour losses in NW Europe in WW2 was to other German armour.
Tank v tank or armour v armour clashes wasn't rare, especially not for the Germans. German armour faced allied armour practically everywhere along the fronts. While allied tank crews didn't face German armour everywhere, the opposite wasn't true.
I was stationed in Bad Kreuznach, 1984. There is a bridge across the Nahe River that has a cannonball lodged in it from 1632!
Shermans were as big as was feasibly reasonable due to logistics. It was a medium tank produced in huge numbers that had to be shipped across the Atlantic. Larger tanks were not feasible with all the extra weight & size. Also, the really big tanks were very limited as to where they could go and operate, because of natural terrain problems and inadequate bridges. The German Stug 3 did more damage than any big tank.
A lot of people don't get that! They have the mentality of bigger is always better, which lead to idea, like the Germans wanting to produce bigger and bigger tanks, like the Maus, not stopping to think about how it's going to move, when almost no bridges could support it. But above all, our tanks mostly were supporting our infantry, not fighting other tanks. The Sherman did it's main job very, very well! The German way sure didn't work out in the end!
additionally, the Sherman was limited by 40 tonne limit as that was the capacity of dockyard cranes at the time in most ports, both US and europe and England. a tiger sized tank isn't much good to anyone if you cant load it onto a ship. Amateurs talk of tactics while professionals talk of logistics (ancient roman saying)
Germans should of made a lot of panthers instead of king tiger or the tiger tank
Sherman's were based on proven reliable platform field serviceable
@@TomA-ln1em they should have made more panzer 4s ..... and stugs but well im german and im happy that they did not
At 8'30" the video makes reference to the village of Gereonsweiler. Gee, that was my mother's hometown. She was 20 in 1945 and still lived there. I can also see the woods and country highway where my uncle lived. My father met my mother in that village when he was stationed there as a German soldier in 1944/5. He was a truck driver pulling a 8.8 flak gun.
❤
Is your father still alive!?
Sir!!
your dad is a living part off ww2 history sir!
I bet your father has lots off ww2 memorabilia and lots off old time wermacht soldiers life and his war experience story..
You need to record and documented them all bro..your dad being an important person or not during war dont matter, because your dad is part off ww2 history..
You are lucky to hv a father who is a ww2 vet.
Respect and salute to your father.❤
Thank you for your kind words. My father passed away in 2009. In his old age he participated several times in commemoration acts with other former German and American soldiers in this area. When I was a child we would spend our vacation visiting military cemeteries of all nations between Cologne and the D-Day beaches. Memorabilia? Not really. I think most people just wanted to forget that time and get rid of its accessories then.
At 8 feet 30 inches?! That doesn't make sense.
Time is written 8:30.
Some excellent combat footage to be sure.
The Shermans were outclassed at distance.
nice mention about the Sherman Firefly at the end of the video !!
Gotta love the Tigers...that is the 2nd Armored Div Tiger Brigade!
Well done, unseen footage, and ive seen alot. Instant subbed
Great storytelling!
Where did they find some of this footage?
I love this kind of research .
Most tanks were NOT killed by other tanks. The short barreled 75 from American tanks worked just fine for the tanks primary role, infantry support.
That is some copium right here haha
@@fosphor8920 Its true though. Before D Day, tank crews given the choice of the 76 or the 75, usually chose the 75, because the lower velocity high explosive shell had more explosive, and produced more destructive blast than the HE from the high velocity gun. Since most Shermans hardly ever fired at another tank, they usually fired at fixed positions, bunkers, infantry, buildings, light vehicles etc, and for all these targets, the 75 was the better gun. Out of curiosity, do you usually dismiss facts that disagree with your world view as copium?
@@jars6230 thank for expounding the definition of infantry support for this wehraboo.
@@jars6230 He was just dying to use the word after barely learning a little earlier. 😉
@@fosphor8920 No facts. Reports from the actual crews. Many did not want to switch to the 76mm from the 75 bc they were not playing world of tanks, but were fighting the German Wehrmacht. the 75mm has much more HE and shrapnel lethality and when supporting infantry and taking out anti-tank guns this was preferred and more effective. Facts don't care about your feelings or World of Tanks.
TWO THUMBS UP! Great videos, that I have never seen! VERY IMPRESSED!
I might add the Germans feared and hated the 155 MM artillery as that destroyed them
After the Normandy campaign Eisenhower ordered all Sherman tanks coming over be 76mm armed. The Tank Destroyers already were 76mm armed. But all those 75mm armed Shermans were used till the surrender
Because of The Bulge losses it was specifically ordered that no impediment be put in the way of shipping 75mm M4s into NWE.
That extra 1mm did the trick, said she
Hey, George Patton sure liked the M4s....
I don’t know why people get so caught up with this. America got Sherman tanks, crews, maintenance crews, fuel, motor oil, spare parts and ammunition on ships and sent them all over the world in numbers large enough to win.
...but in Europe against the German cats, the Shermans were target practice for the panzers lying in wait, and thousands of GI's paid with their lives for Patton's folly.
Exactly. It was a middleweight vs a heavyweight vs a Tiger, but that's why they called in air support and artillery. People with fragile egos just like to argue on the internet
@ditto1958Well said.
@@donaldshotts4429 So lucky they had air support and artillery and the Russians coveringtheir backs.
This channel isn't people it's a robot voiced AI channel.
There was a small battle during the Ardenne, when a single Jagtiger, in an ideal ambush position, caught a few dozen Shermans advancing across a large open field. The destruction of Shermans only stopped when the Jagtiger ran out of ammunition.....leaving behind a scene of utter carnage.
To be fair...Jagtiger. You could replace Sherman with pretty much any tank in WW2
That sounds like the stuff of hour long documentaries, I have to wonder why "Greatest tank battles" never even mentioned it, but I guess you could fill volumes with what they never mentioned.
The same could be said for an entire column of Panthers knocked out by Sherman's, some using the low velocity 75mm, along with a Firefly.
@@robertmaybeth3434 I remember reading it in a book, cant remember which one. From the allied perspective, like the famous "tiger fever" incident in Normandy, they would not have been eager to make public such a disaster. Just like all the other unpleasant and inconvenient things they covered up.........like Operation "Keelhaul".
And they still lost the battle and the war.
Good documentary using appropriate video footage (instead of useless fillers totally unrelated to the topic), good narration. Good job.
Thanks for the visit!
What has always mystified me is why panzer ll, lll and lVs had such slow turning turrets. Surely, this was a major design fault if the tank cannot manoeuvre fast enough with its tracks and its gun can only pivot at the glacial pace of 11 degrees per second?
The 76 was shortened so the turret didn’t need to be enlarged with a counterweight. That dropped muzzle velocity from 3900 to 3400 ft/sec and assured that the AP round couldn’t penetrate German armor. A bad decision back home killed a lot of tankers in the ETO. A similar situation to the Navy’s Mark XIV torpedo.
You should do a video on Lend-Lease Shermans used by the Soviets.
I don't like Lend-Lease. It's a business case getting out money from someone fighting the same opponent. I don't know, how long GB and RU had to pay back, can it be 2006?
@TheWizard-vv1zy war is a business. A dirty, bloody business. However, Lend-Lease pretty much helped get Soviet logistics back up and running. They even liked a lot of the stuff given to them. They liked the Matilda, Valentine, and Churchill tanks.They definitely liked the Shermans given to them. They even liked the P-38 Lightning. But they hated the M3 Lee, and I don’t blame them.
Forget the name of the book, but read one that was published when the USSR collapsed written by a Soviet tanker who had written it years earlier. One bit I recall was when the Ford rep (the factory had reps there to see what needed adjusting in the production line, for example they were diesels) asked the men if they were getting the presents sent by the factory workers. Nothing reached them at the front. Then when they received new tanks and were cleaning out all the packing grease from the barrels out fell bottles of whiskey. The factory workers had found a way to sneak the presents past everyone down the line.
@TheWizard-vv1zy Russia refused to pay. Britain was forced to sell off much of its assets in what amounted to give sale prices to settle the debt, which came due almost immediately on the cessation of hostilities.😊
Another advantage in the German's favor was their superior gun optics. They could see hit farther with better accuracy than the US. Those US tank crews who switched to the Pershing's notice a huge improvement with that tank's gun optics, that made for greater accuracy at longer ranges
That plus they knew their shot probably wouldn't just scratch the paint on der Panzers when they shot at it...
The Pershing was also a mechanical nightmare
On the other hand despite the clarity of German optics the layout of the German range estimation method is generally seen as harder to read. Same with the ergonomics of the tank turret wher German vehicles put the loader to the right of the gun which committed two sins because that made the loader use their left hand to push the shell into the breech and it's more efficient for the commander to be sitting behind the gunner for better communication.
Courtesy of Zeiss optics.
US optics were as good, and design decisions made US sighting better in the field.
My uncle was a S Sgt in the 99th, tank destroyers. He talked of how large the Tiger IIs were
It is interesting to note, that the Panzer 4, the most common German Tank, was armed with a long barreled 75mm gun. So the round fired from it was going much faster when it left the barrel. The British also armed the Cromwell with a long barreled 75mm gun. Plus, the British installed some long barreled 17 pounders on about 400 Sherman tanks, thus creating the Sherman Firefly. The US never did catch on to this idea.
I recently saw a video that claimed the 75mm of the Panther was a more deadly gun than the 88mm of the Tiger, is that truly the case I don't know but it was something I never heard before
@@JIMIIXTLAN The Panther's gun had slightly better penetration at short and medium ranges, the Tiger I's slightly better at long ranges. The Tiger also had a much more powerful HE round and could carry more ammo. The Tiger's gun also had a much longer barrel life (6000 vs 2000 rounds) due to its lower velocity.
The Tiger II's gun is of course in a different category altogether, but had even shorter barrel life (1200 rounds) than the Panther's.
The British did not arm the Cromwell with a long 75mm, but its followup, the Comet, with a new 3-inch high velocity gun called the 77 HV, which could fire the same shells a the 17 pdr.
Well the Americans caught on eventually it was primarily because of the same reason why they did not take the offer of using british invented and designed specialist engineer armoured vehicles to help clear minefields, destroy bunkers, british bridlayer) and lots of other specialist tanks , The most deadly was the Crocodile flamethrower tank, the most effective bunker destroyer in ww2 , nope didn't want it. all these Tanks mostly based on a sherman chassis , they were the brainchild of a British officer, major General Percy Hobart ,all the vehicles were nicknamed ''Hobart's funnies'' these were employed by the british the 79th specialist armoured division created in ww2 , before the Normandy invasion and canadians too, at sword, gold ,juno, these specialist engineering tanks the first of its kind and what is referred to in modern terms as REME Royal Engineers and copied by the US military as ''Sappers'' they stormed the beaches of normandy, and took on the german beach defences, obstacles concrete gun emplacements, destroying it and clearing a path for british and canadian soldiers, this reduced the british and canadian casualties, unlike the americans forces landing at Omaha, they did begrungley accept the british DD floatation tanks, a sherman tank that could swim basically, unfortunately for the americans they released their tanks to far away and the majority sank the odd few that made it, were too few to stop the slaughter, a passing US destroyer USS Frankford saved the day by knocking out the german guns that had pinned down the entire US forces at Omaha, all because they the americans were too proud to accept help from the british it was not made in america . all true .
@@soultraveller5027 I know about the USS Frankford, it got in so close it scrapped off the sonar thingie that was under the ship. The USS Texas, at least I think it was the Texas. Flooded its torpedo belt so it could get more elevation on its guns. I know it was one of the battleships. I also know all about those special tanks the British made.
Just remember the Germans tanks without much fuel did not have any chance, hardly ever mention.
Half were in the shop. Not reliable 😒. So that's always been German over engineering.
@@Fuxerz German overengineering is a myth created by some influencers. Overengineering might be interesting when it comes to mass production. The old Wehrmacht records show that the maintenance quote was normal. The decisive point is that the tanks were worn out against the quantity of the allied tanks.
I saw that it took 3000 hours to build a Tiger, but only 300 to build a Sherman. Shermans were relatively simple and easy to repair. The German tanks were great, but difficult to repair.
@@jurgenmuller143-i don't know......having to take off all those road wheels on the Panther to change one was overly complicated. Keeping it simple helped the Sherman and the T-34........
What we all fail to realize is Sherman medium tanks were facing heavy tanks this fact alone explains the losses!
who is this 'we', Kemosabe?
@@jaykay8570 I would describe (we) as people that that study the vehicles doctrines tactics of war machines?
American equipment faced German equipment German equipment faced Russian equipment with the same results generally it was a manufacturing using equipment
That was inferior in design yet far superior in availability and reliability
"we".... that was funny, lol !
The blame for US forces fighting the Germans with an inadequate tank can be lain squarely at the feet of General Lesley McNair who for some strange reason thought that tanks would not end up fighting each other! This resulted in the inadequate armour and firepower of the Sherman and a huge loss of life amongst American tank crews. He even tried to stop the development of the Pershing tank that squared the odds for Americans facing Tigers and Panthers. The tragic fact was that the additional inch of armour that was eventually fitted to the front of the 'Jumbo' variant of the Sherman meant they could withstand direct frontal hits from 88mm shells with the loss of only 3-4 mph in speed. Bizarrely McNair was killed in a friendly fire incident in July 1944.
The mantra that the Sherman tank was better because there was many more of them is the best argument that it was an inferior tank. If it takes 4 or 5 tanks to overcome an enemy's tank, probably means it's not a good tank.
Shermans were in squads of 4-5.
Doctrine Doctrine Doctrine
The Sherman was a medium tank made in mass qualities. It supplied the british the french the polish all the allied nations including the soviet union. It was definitely more reliable than German tanks. It was a medium tank going up against heavy tanks and didn't have a chance. But for the overall picture it was the perfect tank at the perfect time when the allies needed something. Remember the americans came out with the Pershing tank. A real heavy tank with a 90mm main gun. To little to late.
"Quantity has a quality all of its own" - Josef Stalin.
Stalin. was another idiot that had no regard for human life.
though you are self confident in american warfare, the video material is very good. give us more. thank you in advance!
American: your tank is as good as 10 of ours.
German: but you always have 11.
Yea nah, that’s a myth
@@jackshobbystation1867yup
No it's sort of true, the k/d of a tiger one was over 5/1 but the manufacturer number between them was like 1500/50000 (can't remember exact numbers).
The one-on-one tank comparisions many use to rate the relative capabilities of WW2 Allied vs German tank models aren't very useful. All US tanks operated in mutually supporting 5 tank platoons, not because it cost that many to knock out a Tiger, but to outmanuver and outflank it using deploying 1-2 tanks to engage and fix the target, while the others outflanked and engaged its weaker side armor.
Lot of interesting info but way off on so many aspects.The standard German medium, the Panzer IV did not have wider tracks than the Sherman, nor more direct frontal armour!
The Sherman had 430 mm wide tracks, the Panzer IV was up to 400 mm. The Sherman had 50.8 mm armour at 57 degrees, equivalent to 93 mm horizontal, the Panzer IV went up to 80 mm flat on the better versions. The Pz IV did have a better gun, and was a lighter vehicle, but that came with shortcomings, too, they were well balanced really.
Also the 75 mm M3 gun in the Sherman wasn't short barrel or low-velocity, it was more medium of both accounts but closer to high-velocity than low.
Additional: mentioned was the 2nd Armoured losing 70% of tanks to combat or repair between July and August, but the German equivalents they faced lost between 90 and 100% of their tanks at the same time...
At the conclusion of this battle, the US lost 18 medium tanks and 7 light, 25 tanks total, and the Germans lost 17 tanks mixed of medium and heavy. Not quite as bad and decisive as the claim of "US tanks being outclassed" or"obsolete"...
Tiger 56 metric tons, Panther 45 metric tons & Panzer IV light armoured.
in fact sufficiant armored its a competetor to t 34 and sherman in overall performance
2:27 "the Panzer IV boasted thicker armor plating"
Perhaps depending on the M4 model, but generally speaking, no, this is not true.
Normal pz4 80mm normal m4 like 60 65 mm
@@LoraxOfLiberty Not when you take the M4's sloped glacis into consideration. Plus side hull and turret armor is thicker on the M4 than on the Panzer IV.
This is some College Kids AI Project . Full of false facts and lacks any depth of Info
To the narrator: It's not an artillery barge, it's a barrage! One is a float to carry goods on water, the other is a concentrated volume of projectiles..
A.I. narrator don't care
Lol hmm 🤔 a bit nitpicky?
@@michaelkinville177 artificial
A I Artificial Ignorance?
@@williamsmith3051 I don't think so. If you are interested in the subject enough to pull all this information and work together, is the right word that high a hurdle?
0:37 Puffendorf is actually in Westphalia, west of the Rhine river. The allies didn't start crossing the river into the Rhineland until March at Remagen. Interestingly enough the 7th Armored division was hanging out in Puffdorf and nearby Ubach on 16 December when the Battle of the Bulge started. Cheers!
It is in the modern-day state of Northrhine-Westphalia, but in the former province of Rhineland. The former province of Westphalia is east of the Rhine river, Puffendorf is west.
Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015, debunked most of what has been said.
There is no myth of American armor. The Sherman had barely 50mm of armor plate in the front. It wasn't made to slug it out with German battle tanks. That is what the destroyers were for. The Sherman was mainly designed for infantry support and it excelled in that roll. The British removed the short barrel 75mm then put a big gun onto it and the firefly was born. Had the war gone on another year or 2 we might have seen a tank battle worth seeing had a company of American M36 Pershings ran into a German battle group of big cats. Both having the fuel and ammunition to fight it out until a victor emerged.
@@robertschumann7737I suggest you watch the tank fest video yourself. The chieftain makes a very compelling case. And no the Sherman was doctrinally used to fight tanks. The tank destroyers were held in reserve.
The appearance of the German heavy tanks changed tank warfare and tank doctrine forever though....
No sherman had a chance against a veteran SS commander..such as barkmann...he was aware of the panthers strengths and weakness.and avoided any flank threats
A typical example of quantity against Quality
Well done, and not a cartoon either, thank God!!!
I can see so many types of Sherman tank. I guess repair division needed so many parts.
12:16 just look how many hits the king tiger took to the side and rear. a real BEHEMOTH
Allyboos say its a myth and propaganda despite tons of footage evidence. The cope is that German tankers exaggerated to please Hitler. But we have evidence that our own boys thought the German armor was superior and it was especially at a distance.
The Allyboos say its a myth despite the footage and written testimonials of our guys
My Dad was in the 772 tank destroyer battalion. They had 90 mm. He said they would blow the tracks off the German tanks if they couldnt get them sideways.
Puffendorf sounds like a village near Hogwarts.
Especially if you keep in mind that "Puff" means whorehouse in German vernacular.😅
Near the Holland border
VERY well done & interesting video!
A common mistake made in this documentary is a simple comparison of armour thickness. While the Pz IV did have marginally thicker armour than the Sherman, the fact that the Sherma's armour was sloped meant that effectively the Sherman's armour was thicker. He also ignores that fact that ther Sherman was modified during the war, for example, the M4A3E8 had considerably thicker armour than tne Pz IV and it was sloped to boot, the sherman jumbo M4A3E2 had even thicker armour than the Panther or the tiger, and the tiger's armour was not sloped. Frontal armour on the Tiger was 100mm, frontal armour of the jumbo was 140mm and sloped, and the Panther's side and rear armour was was only 30mm, later upgraded to 40mm, easily penetrated by even the 75mm AP shells of Shermans. This documentary does what most do, and assumes all Shermans, throughout the war, were the early M4 or M4A1.
Darrylleeroberts yes, true German armored plates from 1942 to 45 there Tiger 1/2 Tanks, Panther 5, Panzer 3/4, Stug, Jagtigers and Hetzer tank destroyers will more likely penetrate and spalled by A.P and High explosive shells, because there plates lack of an important metallic alloy form Sweden that strength there steel. There case of 12th armoured division unit with destroying three Panther 5 tanks frontal with 75mm gun M4 tanks and Jagtiger by using a star shell hit the engine scaring the German crew to abandon the Tank Destroyer got mow down by .50 MG on the M4 tank, the key thing about if your on the offensive you will liking be ambush by the enemy, if the enemy is on the offensive you will ambush them heavy loss amoured are expected in battle if your on the offensive because of surprised and disorganization during a ambush.
I thought the things were based on postwar reports by US troops who fought in that division. That's what the narrator said.
First time I ever heard the Sherman had well sloped armor ? I always heard they were a top heavy, high silhouette target.
@@ronaldgrove3283 Both is true. Sherman frontal armor was well sloped and could occasionally withstand a Pz IV or StuG. Panther and Tiger II usually had no problem penetrating. But there weren't too man Panthers and Tigers around. And Sherman was very tall; not much less than Panther or Tiger II. The area around Puffendorf is flat (slightly sloping towards North), open farmland which enables long-range engagements; clearly an advantage for German tanks.
@darylleeroberts,
No M4A3E8 Shermans at Puffendorf and few Jumbos.
You are guilty of the same thing the narrator did. You said the Tiger I had 100mm front armour but ignored the angling (24 degrees on the lower front plate and 10 degrees in the upper front plate) and it's Brinell Hardness of 265. Together, this actually gave the Tiger Is front armour an EFFECTIVE thickness of circa 115mm to 130mm.
Source. Thomas L Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks.
At Puffendorf it was King Tigers of Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 anyway. Not Tiger Is.
The Americans very rarely met any tiger tanks.
The only ones they ran into before crossing the Rhine were protecting a certain bank. Oddball took care of it.
They did not want to lol.
Not many Shermans (none in WW2) had gyrostabilisation 3:05. Even the early Pershing didn't. The first widely deployed and effective gyrostabilisation was the Centurion.
Lol
The effectiveness of the Sherman is such a thorny issue. We can understand and empathize with Sherman tank crews who said negative things about it in the heat of battle; i.e. when you see your buddies getting killed / 75mm HE rounds bouncing off of enemy tanks its hard not to feel the way they did. But if we look at the Sherman from a greater perspective, it really was the best all around tank of the war. Easy to manufacture, ship to Europe, easy to maintainen and repair with less moving parts than German tanks, fits on narrow bridges, highly maneuverable once you picked up a little speed (not as maneuverable from a dead stop), faster turret rotation rate, far superior transmission and escapability than the Soviet T34. It's high profile could also mean the difference in spotting the enemy first which becomes a huge advantage once Sherman crews became more experienced. What many Sherman crews didn't know were some of the more serious issues with German tanks - WAY over engineered, a lot more moving parts means more stuff that can break and more parts you have to stock in your supply chain, TERRIBLE problems with their straight drive train gears breaking constantly with heavier Panther and Tiger tanks, slower turret rotation rate and sluggish acceleration from a dead stop. U.S. tank destroyers also kept the situation being worse than it was. Yeah, I know that there were issues with deploying them in battle in a timely manner but like with everything else, as the war ground on the Americans got better tactically with leveraging the Sherman's strengths as well as with how they deployed tank destroyers. By the end of 1944 into 1945 is where you start to see American tank tactics greatly improve with experience.
When they designed the Sherman, data suggested that it would be in Tank vs Tank about %15. of encounters.
By the end of the war, it was %13.
When armchair worriers bitch about the Sherman, they ignore the use it was designed for.
After the Bulge, German armor was extremely rare.
A good standard tank should have a gun that have a reasonable good chance of dealing with all known threats - from infantry to heavy tanks. Even the smaller, older and 30% lighter Panzer IV had that. The Sherman not. The lack of AT capability was what US tankers complained most about.
@TTTT-oc4eb best AT gun put on the Sherman was no doubt the British QF 17-pounder, turning the Sherman into an effective “cat” killer.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Siempre en un contexto de neta supremacia numerica donde por caso un 18 libras (proyectil exelente en la funcion AT) daba en el blanco. Digo por caso pues el Firfly, Wolverine y el Valentine equipado con 18 libras (no recuerdo como se llamaba esa cosa) eran plataformas totalmennte ligeras e inestables para el 18 libras. No por nada los ingleses desarrollaron para el el Centurion, creo que pesaba 62 toneladas.
@patsmith8523
The Germans built more tanks, assault guns and tank destroyers in 1944 than in any other year. It's just that they were faced with far more enemy forces as the war progressed.
Good film footage.thanks interesting
Lots of Canadians also died in these Sherman iron coffins
The Grizzly I was a Canadian-built M4A1 Sherman tank with relatively minor modifications, primarily to stowage and pioneer tool location and adding accommodations for a Number 19 radio set.
Don't forget the Shermans reliability and ease of maintenance.
The 75mm gun was kept because 99% of a tanks duty is infantry support and the HE round is the main round fired. The 75mm HE round was excellent for this and did well, the armor piercing ammo was good but not great. It could destroy a Tiger 1 from the sides or back, as well as a Panther, but couldnt handle the front armor. This was worked around by sending them out in groups to swarm, youll lose a couple Shermans but others get around the Tiger and take it out. Shermans were easily repaired/replaced, Tigers were not. Thats why they kept using it, the assembly lines were solid pumping out new ones daily, similar to what the Russians did beat the enemy by outproducing them.
By the latter part of 1944 German armour for its tanks was not as reliable as it had been due to Allied bombing of the various factories that produced the tanks , it was more brittle due to the weaker alloys used in its manufacture , which meant that it could not afford the ( full ) protection given to crews in earlier years
cope
At what point was the Tiger ever reliable?
Allied bombing did a lot of damage to Germany’s war production.
@@recoil53 It was at least as reliable as the Sherman.
@@TTTT-oc4eb Look at the Battle of the Bulge - a lot of the Tigers didn't even make it to the battlefield because they broke down even before taking damage.
I''m finding a
The M4 Sherman with the 50mm short canon could penetrate the side and rear armor, true, but within 200 meters it could penetrate any tank armor.
The advantage of the 76 long was it achieved more acceleration, so in close the 75 short was as good as any other.
My dad drove a Sherman. He carried extra white phosphorus shells. The AP didn't work that well, but it was easy to set them on fire because they were typically smeared with grease.
All in all the brave men who new they were
Outgunned most of the time in their shermans has to be admired I really can't comprehend how it must have felt knowing
Those beasts were out there targeting them.
Thanks!
Welcome!
Correction: even today Puffendorf is not a small town. It's three houses, 5 farms, one church and a pub. The crossroads was of some importance.
2nd Armor couldn't have much experience fighting Tigers, because this was probably the first time they actually met some. And these were Tiger II.
as long as the town had a pub...it works for me
@@paullakowski2509 If there's a church, there's a pub. That's a rule.
Control of the skies was a complete allied advantage and in many cases more than compensated for our inferior tanks.
Interesting and informative. Excellent photography job enabling viewers to better understand what/whom the orator was describing. Special thanks to veteran soldiers/civilians sharing personal information/combat experiences. Thru diaries memoirs enabling historians to replicate those stories. For future generations to better appreciate the hard ships/sacrifices suffered by the tank crews. Fighting/perishing/ surviving knowing certain death/debilitating wounds were often times possible. Yet still advanced forward regardless of the consequences. True grit style determination to succeed!!!
"orator?" That is 100% computer-generated voice
I think the German Panzer general Heinz Guderian wrote or said that the engine of the tank was as important as its gun. The Shermans ran longer (better tracks too) than the German tanks, I believe. Best tank of the war in my opinion. As one response notes, tanks were used as mobile artillery and against enemy troops. Destroying enemy tanks according to US army doctrine was the role of the tank destroyers such as the M10 and the excellent M18 with its special antitank ammo.
The Pershing tank was a much more formidable tank than the Sherman, unfortunatly it entered the war later.
Regardless how you feel about anyone this, no one can deny that Puffendorf is an adorable name! It sounds like a brand of pastries!
Some of the beliefs here are myths or without context.
The M4 75mm was a shorter round with a larger HE component than the German 75mm. The Sherman was better at taking out pillboxes, bunkers, and gun emplacements than it's German opponents.
The larger tank treads gave better floation (less ground pressure) making it easier to deal with mud or snow. However, they put extra torque on the transmission and drive train. German heavy tanks like the Tiger and Panther already had transmission issues and would burn them out faster than the PzIV.
The PzIV and PzIII were what the Sherman fought against the various assault guns/TDs (Hetzer and Jagdpanzer). Tiger and Panther encounters were extremely rare. And it turned out that the 76mm could take them out just fine. However, the more powerful 76mm unpopular since it was an AP round and not an HE round which was better for supporting infantry.
While the 2nd Div lost half of their tanks, the Germans lost all of theirs. The fighting was mostly close quarters in the tight streets and ambushes.
Te manda saludos Wittmann...
Dmitry Loza loved the lend lease Shermans that he commanded on the Eastern Front, preferring them even to the T-34. He notes their reliability, their cross country capability and their comparative stealth as tactical assets. He found ways to prevail over supposedly superior German weapons. Check out his book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks.
According to British tankers the Sherman’s most important asset was the rate of fire it could achieve. Sure this does not apply in all circumstances but smoke , AP and phosphorous could aid in confusing the enemy to destruction. They relate that panzerfaust were continually killing them. Despite the Sherman’s many capabilities some US army officers were moved to despair at their under armed and armoured machines being employed almost suicidally when appropriate improvements should have arrived on the battlefield 9 months earlier .
I have to wonder how, and why wasn't the Pershing tank fast-tracked to get them to Europe sooner than they did. Of all people, General Patton surely knew of the massive imbalance of power between the Shermans and the German cats and only he was in a position to do anything meaningful to address the problem! Even if Pershings had been rushed into service after D-day (and had the inevitable problems of new equipment they were certain to have), hundreds of American tankers would have had improved protection on the battlefield at the very least!
Many of the commanders didn't even want the 76mm, citing Gen. McNair's vision that tanks shouldn't be going head-to-head in the first place, that was Tank Destroyer Doctrine, but they forgot to tell the Germans that they shouldn't attack our tanks with theirs.
The brass think more with dollar signs, and "That's not how we did it in the old days", than they do with with soldier's lives, so it takes a while to get it across to them that the moms back home would much rather they field a tank that can be on equal footing, than one that it took the destruction of four so the fifth can get in a killing blow.
The Pershing would have made a big difference if it had been brought in a few months (or a year) earlier.
@ robertmaybeth3434 Two words, Atlantic Ocean. It was extremely difficult for them to get over there in large numbers. Then you have the Pershings reliability and mechanical issues.
Also, the 75 was not low velocity!
My grandpa was a Sherman driver, 3rd Armored Division, in combat from from June '44 to Jan. '45. He said one of their biggest gripes was how the German vehicles & equipment were usually superior, & yet still received noticeable improvements, occasionally big ones, while the US stuff did so painfully slowly, or not at all. The US process for approval & implementation of better things usually took a backseat to cranking out huge numbers of marginally acceptable equipment, & our troops took lots of unnecessary casualties because of it. He said the disparities in gun & armor performance between the two sides was so glaringly obvious & disturbingly huge, it did more to promote fear & hurt morale than most anything else.
Amazing footage !! And great well balanced story telling.
Just one tip.... "by enemy fire"... depends on your perspective / indoctrination.
Good point!
Thank you for your efforts !!!@@FactBytes
This video is of much better quality than the majority of WW2 videos on UA-cam.
Nevertheless it suffers from two failings.
1. It's written from the USA side only. For example:
- The narrator tells us exactly the name of every USA unit involved, but not the German ones. He mentions "9th panzer division" once only. It's like he is reading the American battle reports and nothing else. In fact there was a Tiger unit in this battle, the 506 Heavy Tank Battalion. I will come back to them in a moment.
- The narrator discusses the American tanks and SPGs at some length, explaining the different guns and ammunition they used. But he doesn't cover the Germans in the same detail.
I don't recall him even saying the name of the German "88", which was critical to this battle.
2. The narrator seems to think that two distinct German tanks are the same tank!
From the very start of the video, he repeatedly mentions "Tigers", which generally means the Tiger I. Several times he shows us footage of the Tiger I. He also tells us that the Americans had experience in fighting "Tigers" in France, which seems unlikely. A serious historian discovered that Americans in NW Europe almost never met the Tiger I.
As I said, there was a Tiger unit in this battle, but they didn't have any Tiger 1 tanks at the time. They were equipped with a different tank, the King Tiger.
At 11:16 the narrator starts to mention King Tigers and show us pictures of them. He gives no explanation about why he switched from one tank to the other. He never explains that they were two different vehicles.
cope wehraboo sperg
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Wrong.
Look at Normandy and the German reserves.
Look where they had to go and what was in their way
Oh I forgot, there was only Americans fighting in Normandy
This is one seriously hacked off Brit who is fed up of comments like this
I suppose you know that the King Tiger (3 of them) appeared in Normandy before it appeared in Russia?
He just read directly from "Lessons of the Roer and the Ardennes" (online).
@@mcs699 No, I disagree. I think the video objectively fails to address the topic in a professional manner.
@mcs699
Pointing out historical facts makes a person a Wehraboo now?
When you've grown up, please get back to me.
The M4 medium tanks M3 75mm cannon could fire AP ammution capable of penetrating the side armor of any German tank at 800m. Keep in mind the US M4s tanks were specialized for infantry support, and backed up by specialized tank destroyer units armed more powerful 3" (M10), 76.2mm (M18), and ultimately 17 pdr upgunned M10 (Achilles, UK) and 90mm (M36) high velocity antitank cannons.
German recollections are informative here, Allied air power dictated their situation and forced tactical compromises as well as making preserving their AFV's prior to battle a priority. At that stage of the war they were basically trying to hold defensive lines until overwhelming firepower forced them back.
Absolutely correct. Although allied air power was only directly responsible for a comparatively small number of German tanks destroyed, allied air power most definitely greatly hampered the movements of German armour.
Wehraboo excuses. Where was this when earlier in the war the Allies were doing poorly?
@@Warmaker01 You are obviously a factually deficient sherman fanboi.
The 75mm Sherman were designed NOT for tank on tank..but for infantry..half-trax..artillery..light tanks..and tankers loved them..make no mistake
The US 2nd Armored Division report to Eisenhower in March 1945 is full of Sherman tankers complaining about their Shermans in combat.
@@lyndoncmp5751 IWM "From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products. Only in 1944 was British industry able to deliver a tank reasonably fit for a fast-moving battlefield, and even then it was scarcely a match for its opponents."
Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks During The Second World War page
In the early Tiger vs. Sherman battle's were 2 or 3 Tigers that destroyed 100 Shermans. Lets not be stupid that Sherman's were terrific Tiger killers.
When and where did that happen ?
@@nickdanger3802 In fantasyland.
A Tiger tank on the western front was a rare sight.
The battle of Puffendorf was similar in many ways to the battle of Arracourt, remnants of German armour came under sustained air attack before the tanks moved in. It is therefore impossible to tell if the German tanks were destroyed from air or ground. However US tanks were under-gunned, the 76 was only marginally better than the old 75mm. US doctrine dictated enemy tanks should only be engaged by Tank Destroyers, so all the 76mm HVAP ammo was reserved for them.
Nah, similar in some ways, maybe. The German crews at Puttendorf were obviously much better trained than the young kids at Arracourt. And there were no Tigers at Arracourt. And no M36s, or (probably) 76mm Shermans. And seemingly little air support. Also, unlike Arracourt, the kill ratio was definitely in German favor.
@@TTTT-oc4eb The issue is that it was a relatively small battle not well recorded. My only reference was from Operation Queen which states only 20-25 German tanks at Puffendorf from 9th SS. While US 2nd AD lost 58 Shermans
@@billballbuster7186 Search "Lessons of the Roer and the Ardennes".
Yep it's called Combined Arms. A Sherman 75 could take out a Tiger from the flank. The 76 was superior armor penetration to the 75. The 75 had better HE and that's why it was preferred.
I'm certain that the damage from a bomb, 20mm cannon, rocket, and tank cannon look distinct.
Great video of tank on tank action!! Reminded me of the movie with tanker Telly Savalas driving his sherman back to US lines totall destroyed with no turret, cant remember the name of it.
battle of the bulge
If i recall correctly, that was an M24 chafee tank, and the german "tigers" were M47`s
The film was the "Battle of the Bulge" - utter shite film
Like "Guffy" exclaimed," Forget it! It's like hitting 'em with tennis balls!"
The movie was so bad, Eisenhower came out of retirement just to point out the bullshit.
The British 17 pounder was offered to the Americans, and refused - a case of "not invented here" syndrome?
The 17 pounder was better than the German 75mm and their 88mm.
No, 80% of tank combat was not against other thanks. The 75mm had a better high explosive round - I believe the shrapnel dispersed better.
I think it was standard to have 3 M4s and 1 Firefly in a tank platoon, so the US didn't refuse either.
1,335 M4's with US 76mm gun Lend Leased to Britain.
Tank Chats #111 | Sherman M4A1 (76) W | The Tank Museum
ua-cam.com/video/LIPG2_TOITo/v-deo.html
They didn’t want them because of some of the guns drawbacks.
About 2,000 M4s (Firefly IC) and M4A4s (Firefly VC) were re-armed by the British in 1944 with the 17-pounder. Fireflys were used by Britain, Poland, and Canada. In late 1944, 88 M4s and M4A3s were upgraded with the 17-pounder gun at the request of the US Army, a small handful being issued the Italian theatre.@@recoil53
Like the ability to knock out German heavies?
Why did they accept the Sherman with its even greater drawbacks - such as the propensity to burst into flames. Called "Tommy cookers" by the Germans and "Ronsons" [from the fag lighter ad: "One strike and it's alight"] by the British and Canadians.@@brennanleadbetter9708
if your strategic, economic, and logistics decisions mean that you only have mediocre tanks, then you had better use operations and tactics accordingly.
nothing wrong with the shermans. they were great tanks, and definitely the right ones for that army.
but it's guaranteed that they could not slug it out with the german armour, so therefore, it was necessary to always have OTHER anti-tank capacity on hand.
The Germans were known to refer to the Sherman tank as the
'tommy cooker'. I noticed one Sherman in the video with a portion of track on the front... smart fellows...some track on the sides and a longer barrel might have saved a few allied tankers.
Actually they didn't . Tommy Cooker referred to the desert heat and the tanks having no air conditioner.
And 'Tommy Cooker' was a British term for all armor in the desert.
The terms Tommy cooker and Zippo were used because the Sherman, being petrol driven, usually caught fire immediately when hit.
@@stephenoneill245 - You are incorrect.
Tommy cooker was a term applied to ALL tanks in the desert, that got VERY hot in the sun.
Zippo was never used during the war, and at its worst, the M4 family did not brew up any more often than any other medium tank, and after wet stowage was introduced, the M4 was the LEAST likely tank to catch fire.
Tanks catch fire not because of gasoline (German and British tanks all used gasoline, only Soviets had any large number of diesel AFVs), but due to ammunition, especially the PROPELLANT, was penetrated by AP hits.
So, not one thing you mentioned is in the least true.
Having checked Wiikipedia, I can say the following: Zippo was unfortunately used after all. "Ronson" was the nickname for the flamethrower version. There is no mention that "Tommy Kocher" originated from desert temperatures. Fires were caused by ammunition cook-offs that also ignited the engine. Wet stowage to combat this was only installed from 1944. @@coachhannah2403
In Lend-Lease the US sent a considerable number of Shermans to the Red Army. The Soviets considered the US tank to first rate. In the final Russian Campaign the US sent between 300-400 Sherman tanks to Vladivostok. They played a big part in the USSR’s push into Manchuria.
Shermans were the U.S.'s normal way of fighting a war. Quantity over quality. It doesn't matter how inferior the equipment is just get it out there. Lives were used as fodder because the cheaper the cost more can be produced and overwhelm them with numbers. It doesn't matter how many lives are sacrificed needlessly just keep sending them.
You're given a choice: Be a Sherman crew member fighting a Tiger head on or be a B17 ball turret gunner being chased by a BF109.
Five Things About the M4 Sherman with The Chieftain
ua-cam.com/video/3zubVHz5RzA/v-deo.html
So, who won the war?
@@Me-fm9zknot surprising . We had a country 30 times larger with unlimited resources against a country the size of Oregon with hardly any oil or fuel capability. They also took on Russia 60+ times bigger and more resources. Like a gorilla beating up a fox . Something to celebrate but not brag about.
Allied tank crews had the lowest casualty rate of any Allied ground forces, only around 2%. So it seems likely the Shermans were not the death traps some critics try to label them as.
You question honor they knew they were at a great disadvantage and still came with their all and won
Tank vs tank conflicts were very rare in Europe during WW2. 99% of the time Sherman tanks were used as mechanized infantry support, provide line of sight artillery during advances.
They absolutely weren't rare for GERMAN tank crews. While British and American tankers weren't faced with a plethora of German tanks all along the front lines, the same cannot be said for German tankers. German tanks absolutely faced a plethora of British, American and especially Soviet tanks literally everywhere they were deployed, and they had to deal with them.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Germans were largely on the defensive from 1943 onward with the Battle of Kursk and Ardennes being the sole exceptions. Early in the war they used their Panzers most effectively in the manner I described-mobile artillery in conjunction with their mechanized infantry groups. This was very effective and the Germans deployed mainly light and medium tanks-just as the Allied armies did later in the war. When Germany went on the Defensive, they shifted to heavy tanks that were used largely as Tank/Armored Vehicle destroyers at points where the Wehrmacht anticipated Allied advances. This was less effective for several reasons which have been discussed many times, the main point being tanks are intended to be mobile artillery-using them as static defenses doesn't take advantage of their optimum capability. America made the correct decision to focus on the M-4 Sherman medium tank, which fulfilled it's mission the vast majority of the time. The sole exception was those rare occurrences when they went toe to toe with German heavy tanks-and that only happened rarely.
@@lyndoncmp5751 And they dealt well with them, bringing some of the Invaders down
Tank vs tank wasn't rare. The Germans deployed 1837 Panthers, 1666 Panzer IV, 1650 StuG III and 406 Tigers on the Western Front, the vast majority of these from May 1944. And as one US tank commander said: "What really preyed on my mind was to run into a well handled unit of Panthers". Armchair generals tend to forget the sheer mental effect of fighting against vastly superior opponents.
@@pimpompoom93726 They didn't shift to heavy tanks when on the defensive - both the Tiger I/II and Panther were designed while Germany was still riding the wave. They were the the result of their experiences in Poland, France, Barbarossa and Bleu - when they realised that even the standard tanks had to be able to take on any known threat, from infantry to heavy tanks. The Tiger was a heavy breakthrough tank and never meant to be used as a defensive anchor.
I personally don't like "outnumbering". What does it mean? It means, that many of Shermans approaching Panthers or Tigers cannot pierce their armour unless in range, whilst the 7,5 and 8,8 knocks them out. Finally, the amount of Shermans fight them down, which at first sight doesn't look that bad. Now we have a crew of 5 sitting in that Sherman tin can, coming on in huge numbers. Maintainability or reliability ain't an asset for them, once they're hit, they burn to ashes. The point is, the US did not enhance the model but simply the output of that outclassed thing, truly knowing that they doom their own people. The Germans (Panzer IV - long barrel, Panzer V and VI) and the Russians (T34-85), protected their crews by adding armour and a comparable gun.
The Sherman was the best medium tank of WW2.
World of Tanks has people thinking tank on tank engagements happened regularly. Tank on tank engagements simply didn’t happen on a regular basis. Defensive anti-tank guns knocked out far more offensive tanks. In fact what is the difference between a 75mm anti tank gun and a panther in a static position? Absolutely nothing. World of Tanks has people thinking unrealistic things.
Ussr used the same tactics and there were Sherman variants with 76mm long guns and increased armour
Tank crews were more likely to survive a knockout to a Sherman than in any other WW2 tank. Spring loaded hatches and safe ammo storage made more difference to them
The Sherman was constantly updated. The Sherman out preformed the T-34 drastically in Korea. Tank on tank engagements simply did not happen with any regularity on the Western Front in WW2. When large scale tank on tank engagements happened on the Western Front the Sherman did very well. The Panther and Tiger are heavy tanks, the Sherman is a medium tank. The vast VAST majority of offensive allied tanks were knocked out by anti-tank guns or munitions like the PanzerFaust.
During the war, the Sherman got a new gun, a new turret, a new engine, and eventually wide treads.
Postwar, the Israelis modified Shermans, first with a high-velocity 75mm (M50) and later with a low-velocity 105mm (M51). It was a very adaptable design.
WW2 in Europe was about Quantity versus Quality. Quantity won hands down.
The Sherman was designed for infantry support not tank on tank fighting, also it had to light enough to be shipped over seas, the shear numbers of tanks by the allies defeated the German armor which was better than the allied armor.. can’t beat numbers
Numbers matter in war
That's 100% true, however they were used to engage German tanks. I've listened to interviews of tankers and they felt great about their tanks until coming up against the German big cats finding they were fighting in inferior tanks. The Germans however laughed at the Shermans.
Five Things About the M4 Sherman with The Chieftain
ua-cam.com/video/3zubVHz5RzA/v-deo.html
Not quite true, it was expected to fight tanks - Panzer II and short-barreled Panzer IV - but not the likes of Tiger and Panther, not even the upgunned and uparmored Panzer IV.
sure but at the cost of a lot more lives....
The Germans had Zeiss optics in their tanks which gave them a serious advantage at range...
British optics were just as good as German optics.
Lol the 75mm Sherman was obsolete by mid 1944? Was it obsolete to all the German infantry it came across that didnt have a tank or any heavy weapons that couldnt take it out from a distance? Tank on tank battles were rare on the Western front most us tanks were destoyed by anto tank guns most german tanks broke down on their own or taken out by planes and artillery.
The 75mm gun with high explosive shell was very effective against anti tank guns when it knew where they were.
The is very little true documentation of Shermans v. Tigers
Second. Thanks for video ❤
It was just a game of numbers
The "Steel and Fire" text on the thumbnail for this video caught my attention--let me explain:
My late father was a heavy machine gunner (MOS 605) in C Company, 163rd Engineer (Combat) Battalion who survived the war, despite an MOS with a life-expectancy of mere minutes in combat, from his landing at Utah Beach not long after D-Day through to the end of hostilities. A source of Dad's pride in performance of American forces, and a recurring point of many of his war stories, was American's freedom and ability to employ individual initiative and innovation to adapt to challenges on the battlefield. From an elevated position overlooking Bitche, France, my father witnessed an inventive tank crew defeat a "superior" German tank. The German commander, evidently confident and relying upon his weapon's defensive armor, held a static position among the town's buildings, but could not train his gun quickly enough to land a shot upon the Sherman that was popping out of cover at various points and quickly firing upon the German tank (I don't know the model, though I seem to recall my father saying that it mounted an 88MM gun if that helps identify it). Watching the engagement, my father was initially frustrated at the American's poor marksmanship, as the gunner continually over-shot the enemy tank. After a few such rounds (how many is another detail departed along with my parent) it dawned upon my father what the American was up to. Sure enough, a final strategic round slammed into the building in front of which the German tank had taken its position. The collapsing building buried the enemy tank under a mound of masonry rubble, which American infantry (Dad believed they were Nisei troops) saturated with Molotov cocktails, making a horrid end for the trapped German tank crew.
King Tigers , , , not a fair fight .
Dislike the auto-generated dialog
Great video and narration.
Glad you enjoyed it
G.K. U.S.A The 17 pounders in our Shermans destroyed a company Tiger 1s. One of the German tank comanders was the tank ace Michael Witman. One shot from The Firefly Sherman destroyed the Tiger and its crew. It was an 800 yard shot. Michael Witman and his Company were talented and brave men whose sacrifice was worthy of a better cause. I have to give The Brits credit for their wise decision to hybridize a tank. U.S. top brass dropped the ball on this one. There were a number of obvious boneheaded decisions made by the British and American brass that lengthed the war and prevented the Allies from reaching the Polish border.
Tank Chats #111 | Sherman M4A1 (76) W | The Tank Museum
ua-cam.com/video/LIPG2_TOITo/v-deo.html
Did this battle have some night engagements? I recall reading that Panthers with Infrared sights knocked out US tanks. They worked with an IR searchlight- equipped halftrack (skfd 251 "Uhu") that illuminated a large area.
I was impressed about how the Germans managed to field their infra-red "Vampyr" system by 1945, it was a truly revolutionary development in warfare especially when mounted on a tank. But in practice the Vampyr usually proved more trouble than it was worth. Infra-red lights and viewers were surely some futuristic stuff, but in concept more than actual practice. Because in essence what you had, was a relatively short range spotlight that could only be seen by the appropriate viewer. Think of shining a spot-light of comparable power on your target - that's basically all you had. The range of Vampyr couldn't have been much more than 100 meters and if you were that close, your opponent would hear you long before he ever saw you regardless of what you were viewing him with.
The Uhu was an air defense searchlight on a half-track, it had a range around 1 km. The lights on the tank system were very short ranged, which was why the Uhu was developed.
German tanks often could not be repaired in the field. A tank that was returned to the factory for repairs isn’t helpful, no matter how powerful it is.
Takes courage,discipline and balls of tungsten to go head on With German heavy tanks in defensive position.By 1944,American tank doctrine of tank destroyers and medium tanks to support infantry breakthrougs was all theory,paid with massive losses.The French,the Britts and the Soviets committed the same errors.
I'm Polish. My father was a tank company commander (T-72 in 80' and 90'). He used to repeat me on many occasions: an army is a system composed by a bunch of the systems and so on. The best tank that German had was Panzer III. It was also the most common German armour, because Stug where based on Panzer III. Soviet in 1940 made a test of 2 Panzer III they bought and they arrived to the conclusion than it was better than T-34.
A major advantage the Pz.lll had over the T-34 was that they actually had radios.
@@brennanleadbetter9708Plus five man crew and great optics. And with the radio they could call for an 88 to be brought up..."Schnell!"
A point I didn't hear made was the allied tanks were PETROL...IE TOMMY COOOKERS was their nickname
@yogi1kenobi The Germans also used petrol.
@brennanleadbetter9708 yes apart from Maus...and Russian tanks
The other Sherman advantage was, to quote The Cheiftain, "it was there" and often in numbers. It doesn't matter how good a Tiger or a Panther is, if they are overwhelmed by a force of medium tanks likes the Sherman they were in trouble, especially if there was a 76mm or a Firefly in the stick.
Then the Shermans made Puff...