Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: M4A1 Sherman part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 вер 2024
- Want to join The Chieftain on the battlefield? Download World of Tanks for free using this link, or the code CHIEFTAIN2019 when creating the account, & start your account with some tank goodness: tanks.ly/Chief...
The latest episode of "Inside the Chieftain's Hatch" is dedicated to the M4A1 tank. In this first part, Nicholas Moran will talk about the armour, the problem of and solution for narrow tracks, and the well-known reliability of this American vehicle. Enjoy!
Follow us on:
Twitter: / worldoftanks
Facebook: / worldoftanks.na
Thanks I loved the explanation of American loading dock cranes being limited to 40 tons thus preventing us from using heavy tanks. For years I have read in history books vague references to the Army not wanting heavy tanks because they took up to much room aboard our ships. That bit about our maintenance being so much superior thus creating a myth about Sherman reliability is interesting as well. To be fair the Germans were under the mistaken assumption that most long term maintenance could be conducted between short successful campaigns during which the tanks would be returned to Germany and not only fixed but updated.
"myth about Sherman reliability"? The superior maintenance made the Sherman reliably get into the battle, and that is all that mattered.
The transport ships used their own boom cranes to load and unload their cargoes. The crane's load capacity was determined by the strength of the booms being used. The standard boom could handle 30 tons and the heavier booms could handle 50 tons. The 50 ton booms were stored on the ship for use when needed.
The Army War planners had access to European commercial truck maps that showed the weight limitations of road bridges so had the weights of the M3, M4 and truck/trailer rigs limited so they could cross the majority of the bridges along with their own field bridging and pontoon bridging. The 55 ton M6 heavy tank was developed at the same time as the M4. The Army determined it would be more of a hindrance than an asset on the battlefield so decided not to use it. That didn't bother the War Department since that freed up the availability of the RR flatcars capable of carrying those to haul heavy machinery and loads of steel to construction sites, factories and shipyards. The shipyards produce special tank transport ships that could carry 250 M4's or 410 M5's.
I've only just discovered this series on UA-cam (I don't play World of Tanks) and I must say its quite incredible. Fantastic work from Mr Moran and everyone involved. Great to see World of Tanks pushing some real history onto fans of their game. The only downside for me is the background music - gets a bit irritating and is not necessary in my opinion.
War thunder is a much better game. tanks, helicopters, planes, and battleships. you can play with a PC or PS4, I don't know about Xbox
AgentJotun the aim for these videos is to get people to download and play the game. The more people that play the game, hopefully the more Inside The Chieftains Hatch video’s will be made.
agree on the background music
Couldn't they just pain the tank red? Red goes faster.
Warhammer
I have served on M60A1's, M60A2's, a couple of M48's, and the M1. One of the best tank videos ever. Great job.
meathead: Wow its heavy
Chieftan: GO AWAY
meathead: .... :(
*hello darkness my old friend*
Who is meathead
go avay
War Thunder is better
21:42 Meet Meathead.
I laughed so hard when Nicholas said "Go away" to Meathead! 😂
Yep
no
Maybe so
I laughed cuz meathead's face
I've seen interviews with the maintenance people of the M4 and they said the strength of the M4 was that a shot up M4 could be towed into the maintenance area from the battlefield and be repaired and battle ready in a matter of hours.
The repair yards were so efficient that finding crews to operate the repaired tanks was a harder task than rebuilding the destroyed tanks themselves.....
It was like in Fury each one of the Jobs forgoing the commander could be leaned on the job . You start out as a goner simple enough can you loaded the gun learn to drive the tank then you learnt to aim shoot it! Two of my ww2 infantry trained uncles became tankers OJT!
The ease of repair was one of the M4's strengths; IMO it was overall the best tank in the war and one of the best designs ever fielded.
@AKUJIRULE It was either the best or definitely among the best. It was one of the most numerous, but THE most numerous I'd say was the T-34.
Each M4 came with a training manual that each crewmember had to know from cover to cover so they could take over another position whenever needed. Infantry men often volunteered to become tankers since they felt safer inside an armored vehicle. New drivers usually got two hours of actual driving as training then were told they'd learn the finer art of it out in the field. The bow gunner also was the assistant driver who kept an eye on where the tank was going and provided instructions to the driver to avoid hitting things or running into craters or gullies. The bow gunner also had to learn about the main gun ammo types since he was responsible for keeping the ready racks full. He usually took over the loaders job with the loader taking over as the gunner. The driver was the mechanic but all crewmembers knew how to do his job which made daily maintenance an easy task that got done fast. The M4 was designed for ease of maintenance which was required daily after being used so their crews were able to complete all of the required tasks in good time to have more for rest and relaxation.
@@WheelsRCool You are crediting the tank with the successes of the logistical capabilities of the US.
Put simply, if you switched what tanks were available to the US and Germans, the Sherman would have been out of commission even more and the US would have spent a bit more time maintaining with a much higher kill/loss per engagement.
That's not really a great argument in favor of the Sherman in other words. It was serviceable to be sure. But not superb by any means. It competed against a tank designed several years prior by a nation who hadn't be allowed to build tanks. Kinda sad really
WWII is, from a tank design perspective, a study on how smaller, faster, cheaper to build and repair tanks are superior to the war effort over superior individual tanks that are more costly to build and maintain. Germans did it with the blitz in panzer IIs and IIIs, then the allies returned the favor back to the Germans with Shermans and T34s.
I remember a Tank Overhaul episode where they took apart a German tank engine, and commented on its ball and roller bearings. It was designed for years of life - but the average life on the battlefield was 3 months. They couldn't produce the motors fast enough.
And I wish modern military designers would take that lesson. They need to read the old Arthur C. Clarke short story "Superiority"
@@skovner Quantity has a quality all its own. US equipment has gotten so expensive we can't build as many and accidental losses and parts cost even more. Things can get so expensive that commanders hesitate to use them, e.g. Musashi and Yamato often sat in port.
It's not that straightforward though. If it was that simple, Germany would continue doing pz ii and pz iii, and the USSR would make nothing but BT-7, but when either side gets a gun that kills your tanks, you need to sacrifice speed and cost for armor and firepower, so basically it's a chain reaction where you need to find a perfect balance and stop there
Not really. It advanced tank science extremely rapidly. The reason heavy tanks fell out of favor was that anti tank munitions became capable of penetrating more armor than you could put on a tank. Only with the advent of composite armor did we rectify that problem.
The King Tiger was - in its day - what a modern MBT is today. Same relative protection, same weight - just with a third of the power, hah!
Kinda crazy how the fat cats still were more maneuverable than the Sherman in most cases, tho.
"Alright everyone, we're going to play World War Two reloaded; everyone bring their contemporary 75mm-gun tanks!"
American: "Hotdog! M4 Sherman on the way!"
British: "Tallyho, we'll bring M4 Sherman too!"
Soviet (uses minor cheat code): "T-34/76! Nravitsaya!"
German: "Panzer-IV! Agreifen!"
Italian: "Um... Semovente 75/18?"
Japanese: "Goddammit guys"
Chi-nu had a 75mm if i remember correctly
Japanese tanks where 💩💩
@@James-pn9ux wait , they had tanks?
Note: Britain also had the Cromwell and the Churchill
@Turd Tomato Nonsense, they were amazing where they were at and performed flawlessly for the most part, even going toe to toe with Russia with a nice ratio in their favor.
My favorite tank. Easy to maintain. Easy to fix. Upgradable. A tank with a low crew casualty rate. As well as many other factors that make it one of the most reliable tanks of the war
“You’re going to be relocated from the Sherman to the T34”
I need more chieftain playing with spiders
Might be a problem with the commie spiders already on the T34
T34 or T-34?
Finally. The Chieftain's Hatch has taught me to love the M4 Sherman. I am pleased to finally get a level-headed look at it. Good job, as usual.
Soviets: We have unlimited supplies of manpower.
Germans: We have unlimited supplies of will power.
Americans: We have unlimited supplies of stuff.
Thats pretty accurate
A critical element to a global conflict is resupply.
The Japanese did extremely well in the first year or two, but their chief failure was lack of resupply capabilities.
The American Liberty [a British design] and Victory cargo ships, the 2.5 ton and 5 ton trucks,the DC 3 cargo aircraft were massed produced in huge volumes.
My Step Dad was a foreman for Kaiser Ships in Vancouver,Washington during the war,and tells of races between production lines to make a ship in 42 days!
The Russians also could mass produce huge volumes of war material.
This should be a lesson for us now, if and when we get into a shooting war with the Chinese.
No one could compare to US's industrial capability, yamamoto knew that if Japan started a war with them they'd need to end it fast.
A minor quibble. The steel plates welded to the front of the hull hatch housings were definitely not "sheet metal" (by definition sheet metal is less than 1/4 inch thickness), they were in fact armor plate.
I cannot wait to crowbar this little fact in at a party.
It's actually 1/8th but still
Thick sheet metal.
Sheet from 6mm down, plate from 6mm up. 6mm described interchangeably as either sheet or plate depending on who is describing.
Homogenous Armor
A nice big white helpful aiming mark so the gunners can get their detonations anyway. Love it
Poor Meathead. He don't get no respect.
and only 1 dislike so far, i wonder who did that :P
Meathead: "That was heavy." :)
Chieftain: "Go away." :l
Meathead: (...) :(
Follower38
when?
Near the end when Chieftain is going to show the actual engine in its compartment, but he needs help lifting up the hatch covering it
"Some help he was, when I said 'go away' he took it literally!" XD
"Thank you"
"That was heavy"
"Go away."
Beautiful xD
Back in 1968 when I went to Vietnam, we got into a firefight with the N.V.A. (North Vietnamese Army), & I ran out of ammunition, so I went to the back & told my Sergeant, who said, "We don't have anymore"! So, I asked him, well what do you want me to do? And he replied, "Just point your weapon (an M16), & go Bangety, Bangety Banng! So, I did & the enemy was falling like flies! It was unbelievable, how that whole Company of troops just fell at my saying Bangety! Bangety! BANG!!! Then, out the corner of my eye, I saw a lone Vietcong soldier approaching me, while stomping his feet & he looked very angry, so I pointed my weapon at him & did as my Sargent had instructed, but he would NOT fall. As I kept shooting at him, so-to-speak he got closer & closer, until he was right in front of me, then he literally knocked me over & began to stomp on my whole body, causing great pain. As he walked off of me, I looked behind, as best I could & I heard him say, "Tankety! Tankety! TANK"!!!
Nearly believed this for a second.
Thank you for your service..Another Irishman who serves our country..Great Job!!
I want a job like this. Get paid to goof around with tanks and spiders.
This is probably my favourite tank of all time. It's of course difficult to choose a favourite, but this is a fecking strengthy contestant.
"Later vehicles showed up with a new suspension...hello spider, are you having fun?"
Im American, but I like if people speak in mm for shells and armour thickness
He's probably just listing off the official specifications found in manuals and blueprints and can't be bothered to convert between imperial and metric. He did a similar thing with the Centurion video I believe.
TheDesertScrub I agree but many of the US tanks were designed with inches, that's why you have a 76.2mm gun (3 inches) and why their front armour is 63.5 or 50.8mm. Coz imperial
the tank gun will either be 76mm M1 or the 3 inch M5 both guns were derived from the same gun but used different ammunition they had the same caliber so the Army refereed to them as the 76mm and the 3 inch respectively
Just like the british habit of using 6 pounder, etc...
he's explained before, but he's basiclly using the measurements the vehicle was designed in
Thank you for your efforts to set the record straight on the M4.
US army logistics, we got spare parts, spare parts for days
Until you ask for some obscure thing we really need then you gotta order it from California and it takes 2 years to arrive and the tank is deadlined for two years because the part isn't in production anymore. #armylife
Joseph Ahner #abrams
Joseph Ahner
Yeah, but then (as long as the repair necessary was mission-critical) you would be issued a new tank, and the one that was NFG would be disassembled for spare parts.
Americans have ALWAYS realized how critical Logistics are in war.
Better to be over prepared than underprepared.
+clpfox The Military industrial complex has no regards for human lives. The Pershing tank which could handle a KingsTiger was on the drawing boards in 1940. But they decided its better make cannon fodder with a petrol engine, medium tank equivalent to a guy sitting in a T-Ford armed with a pistol.
Hey Chieftan, Lee-muh is in Peru. As we don't predominantly speak Spanish in Ohio we built m4a1s at the Lie-muh locomotive works.
Lima ... as in Lima Beans, Exactly we Speak English Here in Ohio .... They Do Not Mention the IX Center in Cleveland .... The IX Center was Turned into a Convention Center .... During WWII it was a Huge Tank Manufacturing Plant .... Then there was the Clevite Plant on the East Side of Cleveland .... Seems like the Folks that made this Video did Not do their Ohio Research.
Hey, watch this. I’m gonna start a war in the comments. You ready?
“The Sherman was actually one of the best tanks of the war.”
Here we go.
No war I agree fully. Too many people compare tech based on paper stats and assume a 1v1 type scenario but that's not how war works. Sherman was reliable, effective, and did the job we expected of them quite will with all the other parts of the army around it. Best isn't numbers but real world effects and the Sherman performed very well.
Hungry Hungry Hobo that’s exactly my point, and what a lot of people miss about the Sherman.
I personally love the Sherman and do believe that is was one of the best tanks of the war.
It was good for America, but the gun was not well suited for anti-tank. Though, I wonder what would have happened if they built some heavier tanks.
Also the Sherman was highly adaptable, i mean just look at the fun selection. Americans mounted 75mm, 105mm, short 76mm and long 76mm. It was a fantastic Swiss Army knife
Eh. It was a serviceable tank made in mass quantities. Give the Allies the cats and the Germans the Shermans and the Germans would have fared much worse.
But, the importance of a shippable design cannot be overstated.
Doesn’t matter if single tanks are worse in comparison, there are more Sherman’s than panthers and tigers combined. Also, the Sherman is reliable, and pretty good against infantry. Not a lot of anti-tank abilities, but doesn’t matter. You can always call up tank destroyers (M10, M18 and M36) to face the enemy tanks. Or just CAS it, since Luftwaffe is practically nonexistent.
Or call the M 7 Priest or the M7 Sexton and get a barrage of about one shell per two square yards or less on the enemy.. The more I read about Normandy, the real winner was the artillery.... Napoleon said that God is on the side of the Army with the best artillery, and God was on the allies side.
@Alexander Challis Brilliant, Henry Ford would be proud, it is the American way, ahem Mcdonalds et al.
Going back to logistics winning and losing wars.
US depot in a nutshell
mechanic 1: bro do you have an extra track link and a return roller? Greta Garbo just took a tellermine to her tracks and we had to drag it back here since its kinda okay
mechanic 2: there's plenty besides the stockpile of turret bearings. oh and can you get me a couple of nuts and an additional spark plug in the pile as well?
ZeKeR BaNaaG
That's funny!
lol and lmao!
Probably.
The US tankers had three repair depots at their disposal. First depot was 1/4 - 1/3 mile back from the front lines where tankers could motor into for quick repairs. The second depot was a mile or more away where the disabled tanks were taken for repairs. The third depot was located back in the rear and served as the wrecking yard/major rebuilding facility/parts warehouse.
That little note about the grizzly variant amazes me. As a Canadian I can’t help but grin at that
*M4 side: Blocky*
*M4A1: Smooth AF*
*M4A4: Even blockier*
It's so smooth that i want to penetrate it.
Wait
@@darnit1944 They're smooth, sure. But remember that the angle still exist.
@@YuriYoshiosan Yeah, you better angle your tank to maximise the armor
WAIT
@@darnit1944 The more the angle, the more deeper and thicker the armor is, and the enemy need more power and bigger caliber, or better shell to penetrate it.
@@YuriYoshiosan But please do remember that the rounded cast hull.
The close manufacturing tolerances spoken of that made interchangeability and readiness more effective would in all likelihood make tanks more reliable as well. Parts that are carefully made and fit well work better. We Americans also had an abundance of good metals and manufacturing facilities that weren't being bombed or running out of materiel and skilled labor.
At least for the period they were building the Canadian M4A1, they did increase the thickness of the front plate in some locations, also the slope was said to be improved somewhat compared to the earlier versions. (They may have been looking at a large hatch hull casting at these dates)
25 Nov 1943
Colonel F.F. Fulton, O.B.E., S.D.(W), C.W.H.Q.
ACIGS advised COS that UK is expecting 6500 sherman from USA in 44.
"Sherman tanks were seen in production at Montreal locomotive works. The total order is 250. They had delivered 38 as of 22 oct. The production line, however, at that time had just commenced to move in good order. Certain modifications are being incorporated to Cdn requirments. An outstanding change which was noticed is the variation in contour and thickening of armour at the front, providing, in effect, a straight horizontal front line between sprocket housings, rather then the recessed front with which we are familiar."
Aug 1943
Senior officer
Canadian Military headquarters
2 cockspur street, trafalgar square,
London, S.W. 1, England.
"The thickness of the front of the hull casting has been increased in parts, in general, the ballistics are unchanged due to the slightly increased front slope."
That spider probably enjoy his stay at the T-34
This was in my suggestions and I've never really knew about tanks but now I do 😁
Tank Crewman: We are under attack!! Let's go now!!
Also Another Tank Crewman: Wait let me rotate this thing 60 times.
I hope the Panzer IV will get the "Chieftain Treatment" soon.
Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Panzer IV, Pt 1,2,3
ua-cam.com/video/9q2--Ty9vwM/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5sPrHgWMZ3Q/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7C_zKABgCdU/v-deo.html
Well, now it has. Only took three years.
My friend Jack was a gunner and sometimes TC in WW2. He ran shermans through from about 1943 on. I think he went through 5 or 6 tanks. he said that German 88 just ripped the sherman apart. he finished the war in a firefly with the 17 pounder gun. great video.
logic: ammo keeps on detonating in the tank. “Lets out more armor on!” * only puts it over the ammo, and also puts a white star over it, just to make sure that they know ammo is there *
Makes sense to have them aim where the armor is the thickest.
Tank size was also limited by the need to move them around by train. They have to fit in standard locomotives and be able to pass through bridges and tunnels
Sherman. I love Shermans.
Tiger > Sherman
Agent Washington
Panther > Tiger > Sherman
Universal Carrier > Panther > Tiger > Sherman
historically speaking, Sherman > Panther > Tiger
@@chuggon7595 ahhahahahahahahhaahahahahhahahahahahhaha
My dad's oldest brother was a Canadian Army (Three Rivers Regiment) tank officer, and lead an enlisted Sherman tank crew in the Salerno campaign:)-John in Texas
The hand crank was to eliminate hydrostatic lock caused by oil pooling in the lower cylinders. It's standard practice on radial engines. I always wondered whether the German inverted vee aero engines did this as well.
He did specifically explain the purpose of the cranking. And it is a factor in any radial
The cranking was to clear oil from lower cylinders to prevent hydraulic lock, not hydrostatic lock.
OMG finally, I was waiting so long to see Chieftain inside Sherman tank :)Good Job as Always
Wheraboo logic: If it doesn't have a absurdly big gun or really thick armor, it's a bad tank.
@Danny M Reality is simple - the Sherman was a war winning tank, period. That said, it fared extremely well everywhere except in Europe when facing the German Tiger. Which by the way, the Sherman was never designed to fight against. Ironically enough the M18 Hellcat , which isn't even considered a tank, more than held it's own facing German armour and tanks.
But still, the M4 Sherman was simply incredible. The damn thing saw action literally everywhere, in all theatre's of WWII. Jungles of the Pacific, Deserts of Africa, Winter's of Russia and Europe. Versatile, mechanically reliable with an ease of maintenance no German tank was ever capable of matching, much less surviving in such varied weather conditions.
@yeoldebiggetee Yankaboos? Never seen nor heard from one - and I've been on here since 2008.
@yeoldebiggetee I have - I keep finding wehrboos instead.
@yeoldebiggetee Ok maybe such a thing does exist... Fine. But there are many more wehrboos than Yankaboos, that's for sure. Especially on UA-cam. I don't think I've seen any comments that drone on about how the Sherman was the best, etc.
@yeoldebiggetee Also that's not very fair - you are citing an ENTHUSIAST site as evidence. Do you want me to give you a few hundred Wehrboo Panzer links in response? I'm not saying you're wrong (well maybe to an extent I am) but you are looking at a molehill vs. a mountain.
My favorite version of the M4 is the M4A2 with a 76mm gun, the one that we actually gave to Russia and the UK more than we used ourselves because it was diesel. The Marines used them though I do know that. I dont like the cast versions or the cast/weld hybrids as much, the all welded bodies looked the coolest.
Very well made little doc, I learned a lot
R I P Jacques Littlefield, deceased owner of this "tank farm".....he will be missed, as will this huge display, now sold off and closed...sad..sad..sad !
I was fortunate enough to visit this fantastic collection, numerous times before the auction and closure in 2014...one time even enjoying a personal one on one guided tour by a key docent . And got to get "hands on" on the Panther in their workshop, weeks before it was fired up !
I can't say more.....I am almost in tears about these buildings becoming empty and ghost ridden !
Thank you very much...go away... XD
Lol
ok
Nicholas is a very knowledgeable tank historian, and he has the ability to make it interesting to anyone who has a little tank knowledge to begin with.
Just a quick correction - Grew up in Lima, Ohio.
The Lima Locomotive works were based in my hometown Lima, Ohio and it, like the small town, are pronounced L-EYE-ma. Not L-EE-ma. As in a bag of lye, not as in your knee.
Common mistake though - most folks try pronouncing it like the South American capital of Peru the first time.
Otherwise love the vids.
There is this wonderful book called "Death Traps". His thoughts on Shermans actually being "Death Traps" are pure BS, but his explanation of how the forward repair and maintenance system worked is a highly recommended read. Basically, the Sherman went down on day one, overnight it was moved to the repair group, on day two it was fixed, and overnighted back to the combat unit for action on day three.
I love your videos dude, nice and informative.
My uncle was a Sherman driver in Pattons 4th Armoured. He fought from the Bulge to VE Day. His was only original Sherman in his platton to survive.
I enjoy these talks
But please please no music drives me up the wall
I have to agree on turning down the music - keep for the intros after commercials, etc.
That comment on the crane loops is mind blowing, and so astute
So Canada turns 150 this year, sure would be cool if the grizzly was brought into the game for us.
Even though I don't play WOT much anymore, these videos are still awesome and informative. Thanks to all who make these possible!
poor spider, lost his home...
"Hello spider. You having fun?" And "go away" are my favorite things that I heard in this video
yay my favorite tank
Mr. Nick can be a funny dude, not the first time of course, but when he talked about the welded addition of applicae armor and putting the star on it, thus giving a great aiming point, that was funny.
Why does everyone comment on the Sherman's height? The German panther and tigers were all taller. The shorter. earlier tanks that have been shown were all cramped, under powered, and under gunned. When the Sherman first appeared in Africa, The surprised Germans realized they were behind, then the Russian T-34 showed up and they went into panic mode!
IDK. Looks tall because it's narrow, maybe.
Bullettube I think that the allies went a panic when their first tanks were derstoyed from 3km by tigers 88mm canon.
Absolutely! It was known that anti-aircraft guns needed high velocity to reach 30,000ft or more, and Krupp came up with the 88mm gun with it's reinforced breech and huge casing to achieve this. America's navy had gone from the 5in 25 caliber to the 5in 38 caliber gun and the British navy went from 4.7in to the 5.1in 40 caliber gun to achieve the same aim. But to put such a gun into a tank required a much bigger tank, and the race was on to see who would be first. I think the allies were correct in depending on the Sherman as the 88mm was not as effective in close quarters in France, where as the better mobility, repair-ability, and sheer numbers of Shermans made victory possible.
It was wider then the British and German tanks it first met in Africa. It was narrow only compared to later tanks, and as tanks got bigger and taller, it began to shrink in comparison. What I'm saying is; criticizing the Sherman for it's height is baseless, if you don't take into consideration the context.
When your To-Do list specifically states for the new tank to be smaller than an M3, which the M4 ISNT, then clearly there was a failure at some point...
Operational readiness is the king of battle. In WWII we, the US, were the masters of this. By the end of the European campaign we had so much stockpiled that it wasn’t worth the cost of bringing it back so we abandoned it all. I knew a man who was an airfield engineer in WWII. He landed not long after D-Day. His job was building and repairing airfields for the fighter-bombers to use. They leap frogged forward as the front moved forward in order to keep the planes closer to the action for obvious reasons. He told me that at the end of the war that he personally saw scores of brand new jeeps being driven off the end of a dock into the ocean because we weren’t bringing them back because they could be replaced in the US for cheaper than shipping them home. The French were pulling them out of the water as fast as the GIs were driving them into it. Bottom line, our tanks were good enough, but it was our industrial capability that was the real weapon that won the war. We could replace our losses fast than the enemy, German or Japanese, could kill them. Quantity has a quality all it’s own.
21:44 - 22:09 Rip Meathead. Wasted.
Good ole Sherman. Not my favorite WW2 era tank by any means but if I had been a tanker during the war I know I would have loved it.
can you please do a inside the hach on the m4a3e8 sherman it's my favorite tank in wot plz
Yea its a really special tank
liek you
Sargeant Cookie k
Great video-looks like the design engineers paid a lot of attention to reliability and repair. These tanks were reliable and easy to fix-you could swap out an engine in 3 hours. The same job on a Tiger took days. A reliable tank meant more on the battlefied.
hey Mr.Moran i know its not a WWII based tank but could you ever do a M1 Abrams around the hatch
In theory, yes. We got an approval to do it when we filmed the Sullivan Cup, but ran out of time.
could do the Original M1 with the 105mm
TheChieftainWoT dang well maybe next time?
Love to see one on the M-60 as well. I've noticed that countries like Turkey , Iran and Saudi Arabia often end up using their M-60s and leaving their newer tanks at home. I suspect it's because the M-60 causes less maintenance difficulties. And if the M-60s fail they all jump into Toyota pickups which get fixed at dealerships.
William Sager id like to see an M60 as well
Fascinating- this episode and the series. Very well done. Being Canadian I smile to see the subject here is a Grizzly/Sherman.
New Camera? or did my eyes got better ?
beautiful tank with very good ergonomics and survivability, much better than that death trap on the left!
When is the KV-2 his turn?
Problem is that the one remaining example is in Moscow's Central Armed Forces Museum, and I'm not even sure what sort of a condition it's in.
TheChieftainWoT go to Moscow, fatso.
Time to make a replica
@@TheChieftainsHatch That is true. Plus the hull is a different heavy tanks. There is a kv2 with a real hull but the inside is really rusted.
The only working model of a KV-2 is a KV-2 turret attached on an IS or IS-2 chassis
Man I miss the days of MVTF, such were the days of being able to step so close to these majestic beasts of war, filled with history and mystique. This was one of my favorite tanks of the entire exhibit, funny because it was parked right in front of the Panther tank which was the considered the crown jewel of the collection (of course)
how dare u cheftain u d
say " go away to a god " 22:08 hail meathead
So meathead is Jesus?
Oh no he is not but he is a god when ever I fire a shell out of my tank and arty I quickly say a quick prayer to RNGesus and MeatheadMilitia in hope my shell will strike home
Welp christ meathead
oki
We
Excellent as always - but I still miss the "Sweet Chieftain Transition"
Ill put my part in your transmission.
Thank you for finally explaining why America had no heavy tanks in WWII! And all because of shipping. Who knew?
In Ohio it is pronounced "LYMA"....like the bean.
Used this video when I was building my Tamiya M4 Sherman :D
you guys should add Canadian tanks
Canadian armour didn't really come into it's own until the 70's - before then, everything else was of American or British make. Nowadays, we have the LAV III, LAV 25 Coyote, and various Leopard 2's (2A4, 2A4M, 2A6M).
However, Canadian armour will be introduced into Armored Warfare soon, so you may want to consider playing it after balance 2.0!
K I live in the US so I gust want to give some respect to our Canadian brothers up north
Oh
+Connor Querin Canada still has very little heavy military industry to speak of, the LAV's origins are that of the Swiss Mowag Piranha, and furthermore, your equipment on a whole is largely american design still or you share things with the US [LAV for instance] , other then the Leopard 2, it would be hard to tell apart Canadans and American military forces.
I think there is just a few, including the Ram II, which is in blitz, and I'm sure if it on mobile, it must be also on PC
Phenomenal job Nicholas. Precise and to the point information. Interesting and precise. Well done. Very much enjoyed. Thank you.
2:48 woah, was that a Sheridan?
Yes its a m551 sheridan. But it doesnt have the 152 mm launcher the gun mantle is different. It might be the 90mm
Nice big white aiming mark. Love it.
I really like your videos, very informative but that rock guitar on repeat is just fu,,,, ing annoying had to stop watching due to this.
There is a Sherman M4A1 with the T23 Turret and the 76mm cannon up at the Selfridge air Museum in southeast Michigan. Its fully functional. I would love to see a video on that!
There is a Sherman in Mancelona and Ellsworth Michigan as well just hanging out down town both places. also both towns in the same county
Yeehh... the tin can...
From your profile I guess you were staring at the neighbouring T-34-76 ;)
Nuclearjasper
Not at all, T-34 are not that impressive, just well thought designs
I am actually looking forward for a video on the Ram II
TheOtakuComrade i always see you and I dont know where from. Why did i sub to you again? I forgot, anyways, hello!
Ohh are you RAF1 from the SP forum?
_No_
This is the only username I utilise
Love these series, great work Nic.
Please do one on the M4A3E2 Jumbo. And the M4A3E8.
Thank you , carry on!!!
I remember from watching the History Channel doc. on the Sherman, the tank crews they interviewed all said they had tanks shot out from under them. One tanker said he went through 5 Shermans damaged in battle. I wonder if the survivability of Shermans was higher than other tanks and contributed to it's reputation for reliability.
The crew survivability in the Shermans was very high, at least. Them being so roomy and also easy to get out of meant that the casualty (and especially the fatality) rate was exceptionally low. How good the *tank* survivability (i.e. how many could be repaired enough to be put back into action) I do not know though.
What an excellent report. Thanks for explaining the variations in a complicated series of Shermans.
The M4 was a deathtrap for WWII crews. Matter of fact, that's the name of a WWII tanker's memoirs.... "Deathtraps." That any M4XX tanks were still around at the end of the War is only because the U.S. built 50,000 of the beer cans.... literally a war of attrition where America could literally build tanks faster than the Germans could destroy them. The M4's fared better in the Pacific Theater since the enemy there had nothing better. But, relatively few armored units were sent to the South Pacific; most were sent to Africa and Europe. By late 1944, virtually all the original M4 tank crews were dead, and the pseudo-tanks were normally crewed by just one trained tanker, the rest being infantry volunteers.
Germany couldn't destroy the Shermans in Africa. That is why they built the Tiger and Panzer IV F2.
It’s more of a memoir than anything else. And Belton was in the Third Armored Division, which saw a lot of heavy fighting.
Understandably, there is a distinction among maintainability and reliability, but isn't "reliability" largely based on maintainability? My car may be "reliable" but if I don't maintain it properly, it won't be for very long. Also, generally, the more maintainable some thing is, the more reliable it tends to be. Undoubtedly the two go hand-in-hand. Separating the two is tantamount to separating space and time - conceptually they're different, but practically, they're the same thing.
Also, THANK YOU for illuminating the crane weight restriction. It now makes total sense to me why we Americans never seemed to do much with heavy tanks during the war. It is a critical and largely untouched reason as to why. It surprises me that this is the first mention I've ever heard of it. Considering the massive logistical web the U.S. had to establish, maintain and protect during the war, a change like upgrading all of the cranes in order to transport a new model tank would have been a gargantuan effort. It's also a nice segue to my final point.
While I have heard and read many criticisms of American arms and armor in WWII (justified and not), I have never heard any praise for the logistics and supply chain the U.S. pulled off. Yes, we were well protected by two oceans, but these were insanely monstrous obstacles to supplying two simultaneous overseas war efforts. Except for Canada, there was no other combatant that had to accomplish the same (Japan is probably second to North America). While the U.S. produced about the same number of tanks as the Soviets during the war, every single one that saw combat had to cross thousands of miles of ocean to enter into said combat (in addition to the fuel, ammo, spare parts, food, crew, etc.).
Love the video and the series. I'll always have a "soft spot" for Shermans as it was my grandpa's tank...
John Cornell. The Brits has colonies to draw supply from scattered throughout the globe and didn't have to supply two fronts, crossing two oceans from a single location. While their efforts were respectable, there's little in the way of comparison.
Also, not sure if you checked your geography but there's no ocean between Germany and the Caucasus. German supply of North Africa is a single front, not two and is across a sea, not an ocean and used Italian ships.
@John Cornell I think he was counting the affair in Britain as a front.
@John Cornell I'm curious how the British had to go all the way around and the Americans just pulled up as the British sailed by?
Thank you for pointing out the interchange of reliability and maintainability (including spares and mechanical ability), I thought the same thing, one and the same.
E9 near i25 and i70 at national guard armory, in Denver Colorado. Welded shut but you can walk up to it anytime.
Those M4's with the duckbill addons on both sides of their tracks really make them look a lot better; more effective in battle and even more modern. The ones with the narrow tracks just seem like they lack the balls for proper tanking against the Tigers and Panthers that they were likely going to be facing.
It good for a facts that it a bigger target compare to the rest of the mediums tanks, those smaller tanks with slope have their armor at a disadvantage in close ranges when it can pointed straight down from point blank. However the games still have gun cannons go thru a tanks to do damage rather then being block his cannons or laying on top of the engines bays.
Back on the subject of Sherman, in Michigan about every county have a Shermans somewhere while each have it owns history by the modification of the tank. There is one next to a church of Forest Area townships to have a wielded shield in front of the driver side of the M4A3 Sherman to be entirely different tanks from this. Can't wait to see those different Sherman shown on here later!
Yes, spider was having fun. It is a spider of culture, good taste in tanks.
Mr. Moran, you might has aware of this but I'll comment just to be sure.
Belton Y. Cooper's memoir, "Death Traps: Survival of an American Armored Division," goes in to incredible detail about the the mechanical and military goings-on of Patton's Army post-D-Day. In the book, he cites the mechanical redundancy of the American mechanized force.
Particularly, Mr. Cooper mentions the track durability of the Sherman tanks that allowed them to be inverted, thus allowing one track-set to be used for longer periods than contemporary German/Soviet tanks. Of course, this is a wear-item and not the power-pack, per se, but it adds to the "readiness" of a Sherman battlegroup as a whole. The book has other examples of the mechanical durability of the Sherman tank. If you are unaware of the book, it is definitely a must-read for connoisseurs of armored warfare!
He has went over it before, it's a fine book as a memoir and the day in the life of an ordnance officer, but should not be used to refer to the M4 completely considering it's common mistakes in historical accuracy. However, your point is quite correct.
Of the various types of track Sherman had, only the oldest was the reversible type. All the others were one-side-only, although the flat pad type (equivalent to the reversible) had double the thickness of rubber on the road-contacting side, to provide effectively the same amount of distance, without having to reverse it.
Thanks for being kind to the spider.
The Grizzly is one of my favourite WW2 tank.
Great vid, have been waiting for the M4 for a long time, happy to finally see it.