WW2 M36 Jackson footage.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лип 2019
- ■ Support me on my Patreon
patreon.com/Panzerpicture
■ Store: teespring.com/stores/panzerpi...
■ Information obtained from several sites.
■ Wikipedia
■ tanks-encyclopedia
■ the.shadock.free.fr/Surviving_Panzers
■ preservedtanks
■ pantser.net
■ the.shadock.free.fr/Tanks_in_France
■ Some music is from the UA-cam Audio Library.
■ Music used:
EpidemicSound.com
■ Music used:
KingHyenX - Orchestral Cinematic Epic Trailer Music
soundcloud.com/kinghyenx/orchestral-cinematic-epic
Mattia Cupelli - Redemption
Download: mediafire.com/download/epx5b87pl6kznbm/Epic+Trailer+Music+-+Redemption+-+Mattia+Cupelli+-+RF.mp3
Mattia Cupelli - The Phoenix Download: mediafire.com/download/41vbpwlo17gnabd/The+Phoenix+-+Epic+Poweful+trailer+Music+-RF.mp3
RFGB Music
Flight Hymn (Copyright and Royalty Free)
Download: mediafire.com/download/o675vowro28miiw/Flight+Hymn.wav
Rapture (Copyright and Royalty Free)
Download: adf.ly/paBWv
Last Dawn (Copyright and Royalty Free)
Download: mediafire.com/listen/jd9aee88ch8p2e6/Last+Dawn.mp3
Apocalypse (Copyright and Royalty Free)
Download: adf.ly/paBFY
Alan Walker - Fade
Free Download @ nocopyrightsounds.co.uk/video/alan-walker-fade/
Ahrix - Nova
Free Download @ nocopyrightsounds.co.uk/video/ahrix-nova-ncs-release/
Creator of Worlds - Epic Scores / APM Music
DANIELE Epic Soundtracks - Tension RMK
soundcloud.com/syciix
Cloister of Redemption by Jens Kiilstofte
machinimasound.com/music/cloister-of-redemption
Dystopia by Per Kiilstofte
machinimasound.com/music/dystopia
End Game by Per Kiilstofte
machinimasound.com/music/end-game
Rallying the Defense by Per Kiilstofte
machinimasound.com/music/rallying-the-defense
Battle of Kings by Per Kiilstofte (Machinimasound)
machinimasound.com/music/battle-of-kings/
The Land of the Wizard by Per Kiilstofte (Machinimasound) |
machinimasound.com/music/the-land-of-the-wizard/
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
(creativecommons.org/licenses/b...)
Copyright fair use notice
All media used in
this video is used for
the purpose of education
under the terms of
fair use.
All footage and images
used belong to their
copyright holders.
■ Support me on my Patreon www.patreon.com/Panzerpicture
■ Store: teespring.com/stores/panzerpicture-2
I took a minute to watch this video again and noticed that the snow footage was taken of the 703d in Belgium and specifically my dads’ platoon. The title of the picture at the start identifies the 703d TDBn. I can tell that it was my Dad’s platoon because there is no Star on the front sloping gladius plate of the TD.
Dad told a funny story about this. He was in Hamish, Germany fighting in the Hurtgen Forest with his platoon of M-10’s. the night of 13th and 14th of December 1944. He heard the Germans cutting new roads through the woods at night stopping during the day. Everyone on the front knew an attack was coming and the bulge started December 16th. On December 16th he was pulled back to Breinig, Germany. And that night he was ordered to Webromont, Belgium finally arriving on the 20th of December.
The direct route to Webromont was cut off by the 1st ss so he went north of them going though Eupen, Belgium. B company (16 TD’s, VS 250 from the 2d SS) was then attached to the 82d airborne division as a road bump to the 2d SS. They moved to Verviers, Belgium. Where dad found a Munitions depot: everyone knew it was an emergency, so the depot was really motivated to get them into battle with the best equipment they had brand new M-36’s and they took trade-ins.
Dad said it like this, “There was a tent that was a mile long my platoon stepped off their tanks on one end took off all their clothes except for their boots. The next tent they took showers, the next they were deloused, the next they got new uniforms, the next they saw a dentist, the next they got a physical exam and then stepped outside got in there new spotless M-36’s fully loaded with gas food and bullets. It only took a couple of hours. It is the model of Army efficiency”.
The Td’s were not assigned to anyone, so they did not have any identifying marks at the start of the bulge that was done at the Battalion level. They just Had USA and a serial numbers. If you look at the film, they show them finally putting on a star on the front gladius plate. Later in the bulge when the battalion command caught up to them the decals were put on. This makes dads platoon very easy to spot in photos.
Again, thanks for posting It is cool to see what my dad went through.
Bill
You're welcome I'm glad you enjoy watching, and thank you for the amazing story, it's because of these men and men like your father we enjoyed such a long time of freedom and peace.
PANZER Insight by the way the picture of the 4 TD’s in Webromont that you have on the cover of your vide is my fathers TD, He is the-guy standing on the back next to the 50 cal. The cool thing is the 50 is uncovered and an ammo can attached. They are going into combat. They went to Sart Belgium supporting the 325 Glider infantry regiment 82d airborne.
The Greatest Generation! Thank you for posting that about your Dad.
Very interesting footage and I also find it great you could share with a lousy armchair "warrior" what he went through...
glacis plate?
My father was a platoon commander in the 703d TDBn B3 and was in the bulge attached to the 82d airborne division. He had a M-36 during that engagement. He Lost his 4th TD Just outside of Manhay Belgium on January 3, 1945. 5 were killed by a Panzer 5 shooting at about 1200 meters. The shell hit high just right of the mantlet going through The copula hitting a HE shell killing all instantly. Dad was not on the tank at that moment. Those men were 17 to 20 years old my dad was just 21. Keep up the great work.
Bless your family William.My uncle Joseph Escalante was in ww2.Never got to meet him he died before I was born.
Much respect for the old man. God rest his soul, he earned his rest.
Wow. You got the history direct.
Underrated vehicle IMO
I agree with you on that one.
The M36 tank destroyer, formally 90 mm Gun Motor Carriage, M36, was an American tank destroyer based on the M10 tank destroyer and a new turret mounting the 90 mm gun M3.
The M36 was the replacement for the M10 after it became clear the M10 had trouble with the bigger German tanks like the Tiger I and Tiger II.
The M36 was produced from 1944 until 1945 and approximately 2,324 were made and it joined in on the fighting in Europe and the Korean War.
Several variants were made like the M31B1 a tank destoyer with the 90 mm gun turret on a M4A3 Sherman hull. (you can see some rare footage of one at 10:38
M36...with that 90mm gun...tiger/panther killer.
Nice to see footage of armor in the Ardennes camouflaged with bedsheets, in most cases donated by local residents since the US Army didn't have whitewash paint on hand. Was hoping to see more of the M36B1, a variant with the M36 turret on a M4 Sherman hull.
I'll have to watch the video again. The only M36B1 I noticed was the one firing at the very end. Kinda surprised how many M36's Ive seen running chevron track and grousers.
It is so weard looking at this footage and suddenly the name of the city they are fighting in is being mentione ( 9:41 ) I realize that I know the city and I have been there. Suddenly I see everything in a completely different light. This was just 75 years ago. So much has changed since then.
And yet so little.
He was a tank killer. Only 2000 produced, but in action since july 1944. He could destroy a Tiger and a Panther frontal, with his 90mm gun! Mentioned not really much in documentary's!
@Big Bill O'Reilly 1400 Tiger I
@Big Bill O'Reilly 80% off those were broken down in a field somewhere.
@Joseph Sosa didn't matter really. As if the germans could get more of there tanks to fight us, the M36 Slugger that was more reliable an with its good 30mph speed an powerful 90mm gun, it would've an as history showed, it was a formidable TD for the German tanks. And if the germans did manage to fight back the russians an the war was longer an they got more tanks to the western front, we of course would've jus made more M36 Slugger's. As the American Army loved em a lot.
Heck yes dude. M36 Slugger was made in good numbers. An it's Reliable simple design an powerful 90mm gun an it's 30mph speed, this Killer TD was a very effective weapon against the germans. An it was great against the russians tanks in Korea too. And if the war lasted longer, like if the germans managed to win more battles against the russians, we could've jus made more M36's. As of course it was well loved an it killed German tanks well.
@@seanmager1168 And why did the Americans and English withdraw their own tanks and call in the Air Force every time they saw a tiger?
Excelentes sus videos, siempre estoy pendientes de algún lanzamiento, felicitaciones
Cant imagine how they lived in that weather. No heat!
It was a Tank destroyer and not a tank. Only effective when firing from concealed, ambush position and not by advancing out in the open battle field. Still had weak armor. But it was the only US self propelled vehicle with the German tank killer gun-90 mm, used from mid 1944, the Invasion of Normandy until the end of WW2. The US Pershing tank was only introduced into combat about six months before the fall of Berlin.
Awesome stuff
The M-36 was the first American AFV with the firepower to takeout Panthers and Tigers, thanks to the M3 90mm cannon.
Well no m7 76(m10a1)and m1 76 mm gun (m18) had 106-120 mm of armor pen at 1000 meters more than enough for tigers but yes on the panther
@@onur97able M-36 tank destroyer 90mm naval gun was adequate to take out Tigers.
@@11B30Inf what i was saying was the whole only 90 mm can go trough tiger and panther was a myth 76mm guns on both m10 and m18 is well capable to pen the front of those 2
@@11B30Inf The 90mm on the M36 was a derivative of the then-in-service 90mm anti-aircraft gun. Most of the changes as expected centered around the mount and fire control. The 3-inch gun on the M10 TD was likewise an adaptation of an anti-aircraft gun. This does really make sense because when shooting at aircraft, the boom at the end is not nearly as important as shell velocity and range---against ground targets that translates to higher projectile speeds and a flatter trajectory, two very important characteristics for an anti-tank gun.
You earned a new subscriber! Love the m36! :D one question though... the m36’s armor piercing shell can pen the front of the Tiger ll’s front turret armor no?
Thank you for the sub 👍 👍 👍
To answer your question, it's difficult to say, some test say yes and other say no, the armour of the Tiger II was sometimes from really bad quality and it would crack and would be easily penned, other times it would take several hits and it would penn.
Also some test were based on biased and propaganda so you have to take them with a grain of salt.
@@PanzerInsight Thanks! :) love your content keep up the good work!
Yes. In some places and with the Right special shells an the Right angle, the M36 Slugger could kill the king tiger with a frontal attack. But even so, the M36 Slugger had a max speed of 30mph. So it also could get to the back an sides of a king tiger an kill em there too.
Sean Mager :0
And why did the Americans and English withdraw their own tanks and call in the Air Force every time they saw a tiger?
Where do you get all the footage from? Music is spot on. + sub. Good job.
Thank you Ken, I have searched through footage for years now and collected them.
@@PanzerInsight thank you for your hard work! Like to see a M36 go to DC and take out the enemy!
If I'm in the Ardennes in late 1944 early '45 I want to be in one of these. Preferably hull down with good camouflage.
SLUGGER LIFE
Roger that sir
I wonder where all the dramatic music and singing choir is coming from. I would have expected combat sounds.
The meanest looking allied tank of wwII...
Lol. Nice 1. An it was Mean. It was Rough an Brutal. As its Gun was a really Powerful Gun. Could Tear through lots of the German tanks. An this combined with its 30mph speed also made it very effective.
I'll bet this tank had a major roll in defending Bastonge. I understand it had the same hitting power as the Tiger 1 gun.
I'm glad I didn't have to fight World War 2. That fucking orchestra would have driven me batshit.
😂 😂 😂
What we are seeing is a world where Paranoia is a survival skill .
M36 - ottimo CACCIACARRI
ben armato
ben protetto
veloce
realizzabile in gran quantita' per molte componenti gia'
in produzione.
Nice video of footage shows USA tank
Destroiers thanks 👍
did the Jackson have 2 different main guns? great video.
No it did not.
4:30 don't mess up that natural camo. Lol.
My father served in the 67th regiment second armored division HELL ON WHEELS!
I OFTEN WONDER IF HE IS IN ONE OF THESE VIDEOS! LOST HIM AT 5 Y.O.
Been looking for TDs from 602nd. My father in law was in B company and was wounded around the Bulge. When we visited Normandy I saw a displayed TD. I told my wife that was the kind of vehicle her dad was on in the war. As we got closer I saw the bumper markings from the 602nd, although it was from A Company. I still was actually chocked up a bit
Thank you for the comment 👍 👍 but there's probably more chance in finding pictures then footage, but you never know.
My father, Lt. Grant W. Claymore, Co A 3rd Platoon 607 TD Bn., was awarded the DSC for rescuing crewmen, under fire, from a burning M-36 on April 11, 1945 in Cottondorf, Germany.
First song ?
Best tank destroyer of the war.
The M36 had great mobility and a great gun but had a glass jaw. The JAGDPANTHER had the mighty 88 out of the King Tiger. It had the 88mm KwK L/71. This gun dwarfs the 88 in the Aufs. 6 Tiger 1.
The quick firing 90mm in the M36 is a great gun on a fast acting chassis with excellent visibility. But one touch from the L/71 and there will be nothing left.
Set aside your love for all things American and see with objective eyes.
It always comes down to the crew and who fires effectively first.
The Jagdpanther is worth a troop of M36's especially if the crew is trained up on the Eastern Front. So I must respectfully disagree. The Jagdpanther is the wars best tank destroyer not the M36.
The JagdTiger is another story.
@@canusakommando9692 Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger are pieces off junk compared to this, the Jagdtiger was to heavy and awkward the Jagdpanther had bad visibility and terrible engine problems adopted from the terrible engine problems the Panther had, big tanks don't make good tank destroyers they are to easy to spot and not even talking about the terrible roadwheel system that were horrible to replace or maintain, also a open top is also great in spotting enemies something that was also important, so it didn't matter that is had little armour.
The M36 gun was also better then the 88 much lighter and could knock out anything the Germans had.
They also proofed to be really great in the Korean war and no North Korean tank had an answer to it.
Thunder check i dont think the 90mm could penetrate the jagdpanthers front at all
@@thundercheck3691 M36 had no armor. It could easily be destroyed by infantry. I wouldn't want to be in that rolling coffin
@@JimmyPtheman and a Tiger could also be destroyed by infantry, what's your point, tanks are always F. ed if they go out of there roll, the M36 wasn't supposed to be Infantry support and would be miles away from any Infantry.
36 with panther track for added armor ?
can anyone verify through correspondence from ww2 that this was nicknamed a Jackson tank?...or can you verify through memory of conversations?
I think it's a postwar name but I'm not sure.
Its designation was M36 Gun Motor Carriage 90mm and some crews called it "Slugger" or "Brawler". I think it was post war practice to name American vehicles after their famous generals, just as it was common to give German vehicles names that were not used in WW2.
Hermoso documental
Coldest winter in Europe on record .
COH Blitzkrieg mod got me here
90mm its pure love!!
Have you ever been to the south africa war museum in johannesburg ?
No never.
No. Too dangerous.
I just saw an M5. I couldnt imagine being in an M5 during this stage of the war..
👍
When Jack suddenly heard the music change, he knew. It was time for death
Edit: I do wonder if there are any M18 Hellcat footages
I can still hear the guns firing, MUSIC is not LOUD enough.smh.
Ricarte Caballero check out the Sherman’s in Kelly’s Heroes heavily barreled biggest speakers
If they embraced the world of wartanks editing, they'd avoid that problem by increasing the music volume.
Wow military actions on snow how much cold ,dangerous, hardam doing
You need to understand the limits of fair use. It does not include extended scenes of video or audio. It certainly does not cover being put out in a way to make you money.
Nice of topic comment there buddy.
But fair use also doesn't cover works over 70 years old because of public domain. Also videos marked under education, have more rights under fair use, especially if you make a compilation. Compilation are also covered under fair use, so these videos are not the complete works of anyone.
A falta de un carro de combate pesado, el M-36 dotó de pegada contundente a las fuerzas acorazadas occidentales.
I bet these tanks tore the Russian T34's apart in Korea, even with the 85mm gun the T34 was out classed by just about every Yank and UK medium to heavy tanks.
These were brutal in Korea.
Thank you for your comment.
The T34-85 was an excellent medium tank. Properly-used, it could knock out a King Tiger, as happened on several occasions during WWII. They gave U.S.-UN forces a heck of a time in Korea. The original token force stationed there had no heavy weapons and only a few WWII-era 2.36" bazookas, whose rockets bounced off the sloped armor of the North Korean tanks. Likewise for the few M24 Chaffee light tanks in country, whose 75mm M6guns could not penetrate the well-sloped armor on the T34-85's. It was not until some 3.5" "Super Bazookas" and better tanks -M-26 Pershings with their 90mm main gun and also some M4A3E8 Shermans with their 76mm cannon - that the U.S.-UN had weapons capable of dealing with the T34-85. The British had some Centurion tanks in Korea; these also gave an excellent account of themselves against enemy armor and other targets. Korea was not, per se, a tanker's war as the terrain was not suited to large-scale use of armor, being so rugged and mountainous. So tank versus tank engagements were fairly rare. Crew experience and training proved to be decisive in action - rather than the type of tank used. The T34-85 and Sherman M4A3E8 and/orM-26 Pershing faced off against one another - and the Allied tanks scored disproportionately higher numbers of enemy tanks destroyed. The T34-85 was an excellent tank, but the greater training and experience of U.S. tank crews - many had fought in WWII - told in the end.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 The T34-85's were decimated by US and UK tanks in Korea, as for knocking out a King Tiger, a standard US Sherman could knock out that tank too, if it got a close side shot, or a rear end shot in first, out in the open, amono-amono the Tiger I & II would blast the T34-85 to kingdom come. But than a tank is only as good as the men who crew it and the men who lead it into battle, late 44 and 45 experienced tank crews in the German forces were a rarity, the King Tiger was rushed into the field, crewed by inexperienced kids and they were a nightmare to maintain and keep battle ready which is why they were knock out by T34's & Sherman's.
@@oveidasinclair982 - Re: "as for knocking out a King Tiger, a standard US Sherman could knock out that tank too, if it got a close side shot, or a rear end shot in first, out in the open, amono-amono the Tiger I & II would blast the T34-85 to kingdom come." A standard early model Sherman with the M3 short-barreled 75mm cannon could lay right alongside a King Tiger and fire its gun, and do nothing more than scuff the paint. Both variants of Tiger tank were extremely difficult to destroy. There are records of Tiger I's on the eastern front taking more than 100 hits from artillery and guns of various sizes, yet continuing to fight with full-combat effectiveness. The Tiger II was even tougher. There is no record of a King Tiger being penetrated frontally during WWII by any anti-tank gun of any kind. Side and rear shots were possible, but not as easy as you might think. The interleaved road wheels of the design also served to project the hull sides in addition to the hull armor itself. Many Soviet and Anglo-American tank crews found that tungsten-cored shot was necessary to knock out a King Tiger, even from the flank - and tungsten-cored shot was always in short supply. A rear shot would do the trick, if you could get close enough. Even then, unless you set the tank on fire, you had a mobility kill only, i.e., the gun was still operable and the crew still capable of fighting. Knocking off a track worked, too, that's a mobility kill and if the enemy crew could get to it to repair it, potentially only a temporary setback. Jamming the turret ring works - but that's a small target to hit. Allied crews sometimes could fool a King Tiger crew into abandoning their tank by loading up on white phosphorus shells and hitting with those. They caused fires which smoked a great deal and were tough to put out, and some tank crew mistook the smoke as their own tank being to burn and would bail out. Worst case, like the Russians, U.S. and British tankers traded tanks (and potentially their crews) for the time and space to knock out a King Tiger. Best case was to use combined arms warfare - call in a time-on-target artillery strike (the bigger the guns the better), a tactical air strike, or both - in combination with the best-armed tanks and TDs engaging it. Late in the war, when sufficient panzerfausts were captured and fell into Allied hands, tank hunting crews with these would use them against their former owners. They were good weapons - the Panzerfaust 60 (the most-common version), had a 13-lb. shaped charge explosive warhead which could defeat up to 200mm of armor.
North Korean T34-85's gave the token American-South Korean "trip-wire" force a lot of trouble before the M4A3E8 Shermans and M-26 Pershing tanks made over from the U.S. and supply depots elsewhere. In South Korea proper, there were a few M24 Chaffee light tanks - whose low-velocity 75mm gun was insufficiently powerful to knock-out a T34 - and a few 2.34" bazooka rocket launchers, which also proved unable to penetrate the sloped armor of the North Korean tanks. It wasn't until reinforcements arrived in the form of some M20 3.5" "Super Bazookas" and some M4A3E8 and M26 tanks - that U.S. armored and anti-tank forces began dealing with communist armor on anything like an advantageous basis.
My soul tank
It's a crying shame they didn't find a way to arm all the Shermans with the 90mm M3. That gun could lift the turret right of off of a Panther or Tiger with no problem whatsoever. The thinking of those days was to put multitudes of under gunned tanks on the field, with what they viewed as an expected and "acceptable" number of losses......vs putting not so many tanks with big guns on the field like the Germans were using. There were multitudes of Shermans. It probably wouldn't have been so logistically challenging to arm them with bigger 90mm guns, vs building an altogether heavier tank like the Pershing in high numbers. British firefllies were wildly successful tanks using the hard hitting 17 pounder.
They did arm them with the 90mm you can see the M31B1 at the end of the video, it was a Sherman with a open-topped turret.
Well....the French and Israel did after the war and the Sherman were much better tanks...
Say something, damn it. Let me know what I'm looking at.
That's not the point of this channel Edward, it's a archive channel for footage.
M36 footage
And you do that well. I would just like to have a little context. Who, when, and where. Also, anything unusual about this vehicle what variant is it?
I love that model except i always felt it was to vulnerable to Molotov cocktails and grenades.
Most casualties came from artillery, it would hardly come into close combat, because it would be in the back of group.
Hence the "roof" you see fitted to the TDs in the beginning of the video, sadly coming quite late in the war. Since most tank destroyers were misused as infantry support vehicles they were very susceptible to enemy grenades or sniper fire.
All AFVs are governed by the balance among armor protection, mobility and firepower. American TD doctrine emphasized mobility and firepower and in order to achieve that, sacrificed armor protection. Like the old saying, "Fast, cheap, good---pick any two."
Panzer, wo es rein Regnet. Lol
Most of the content about American tanks in WWll, is about the early 75 mm version of the Sherman....all the massive pissing and moaning about it....but once you get to the 76 mm version of the Sherman almost no content about it...because the 76 mm was a fairly good gun....also...less content about American TDs, both 76 mm and 90 mm...because they could kill German tanks with almost no real issues....
late war Sluggers and Pershings were good but nothing compared to Soviet IS2 or my favorite T3485
The M36 was far more superior then the T-34/85 and the North Korean Tanks were slaughtered , the IS2 was already obsolete by this time.
@Leopardskin: "late war Sluggers and Pershings were good but nothing compared to Soviet IS2 or my favorite T3485" Beg to differ. The IS-2 with its 122mm gun was a formidable weapon, but hardly invulnerable. It too was a medium tank at 46tons, even though the Soviets classified it as a heavy for a while. Although its armor was improved over the T34 series, Panthers and Tigers had no trouble penetrating their armor and knocking them out at most feasible combat ranges. It's naval-derived main gun used two-part separate loading ammunition, which limited the tank's ammo load to less than thirty shots, and also condemned it to a low rate of fire. The T34-85 was an excellent tank, but in the Korean War, American Shermans and M-26's had little trouble knocking them out once sufficient supplies of HVAP tungsten-cored AT shot were made available for the 76mm in the M4A3E8. Pershing was good to go as is, and knocked out the T34's easily. We don't know how the M-26 would have fared against the IS-2, since they never faced one another in combat. Whoever got in the first shot would have had a significant advantage. Given that the 90mm was flatter-shooting and the U.S. fire-control equipment and optical sights were better, the U.S. design would have had those advantages. Obviously, an M36 would have had nowhere near enough armor protection to survive slugging it out with a T34-85 or IS-2, but again, if it got in the first shot, it's potent 90mm gun was enough to finish either one off. A better choice for a Soviet anti-armor vehicle would be the SU-100. The T34-85 and IS-2 were both used predominantly as breakthrough and exploitation weapons.
Great gun but no Armour. At least not much. Add a little more with a few well placed logs or anything else you could think of.
given the doctrine that Tank Destroyer Branch was using additional armor would have been more of a hindrance than an asset.
Under the doctrine Tank Destroyer Battalions were to be held in reserve and rush to contain a possible break through, a high road speed and a gun that hits hard were of far greater importance than armor.
@@pantherace1000 Obviously the doctrine did not translate into reality, as if it actually did, you would not see tankers putting what ever they could find onto the front in an effort to increase armor protection. Reality bites.
I never seen pictures of an up-armored M10 or M36.
@@dougabbott8261 - Your point speaks to why the WWII U.S. Armored Force doctrine did not survive in peacetime after the war. The whole concept of splitting Tanks and TDs apart was a fallacy. The crews didn't want a "tank killer" (TD), they wanted a "killer tank."
@@GeorgiaBoy1961also tank destroyers weren't really needed anymore after the war, especially when better and new ammunition.
I would have rather been in one of these or the M-18 rather than the M-4 Sherman. The armor was less, but the guns were wayyyy more suited to going up against the later Panzers, Panthers, and even the Tiger. Plus these guys could shoot and scoot.
The M-4 was designed as an infantry support tank to fight an earlier war. It was outclassed in the tank vs tank role against anything meaner than the Panzer III.
Hindsight being 20x20, the crews of the Shermans were basically sacrificed as industrial might vs better armor and guns. I have the utmost respect for their bravery. Sheridans and M-113s were much the same. Thankfully we're progressed past that with the Bradleys and M-1 series.
You should check out Nicholas Moran’s (the chieftain) videos on the Sherman. You may be surprised to find how capable of a machine it was and why the us army stuck with it for so long
@@hatsnotmy9591 indeed the later versions were pretty much capable of knocking out anything.
Lol, m18 had the same 76 as late Shermans, and had only 1/2" or 5/8" armor in many places, and *no turret roof*
Would suck to come under 88 tree burst fire with no roof.
55000 shermans were built and fielded during WW2
If the Shermans were so bad then how come they were in use all the up to and including the 1967 6 day war?
And where are the pictures of the hundreds of destroyed M36s? With German tanks you never forget to show a few destroyed ones.
Und wo sind die Bilder von Hunderten von zerstörten M36? Bei deutschen Panzern vergissen Sie nie, ein paar zerstörte zu zeigen.
The M36 was pretty rare on the Battlefield also they were introduced late in the war when the German big tanks were rare, but if they came into contact, with German tanks the M36 could destroy all of them. and with light tanks scouting for them, they were extremely deadly.
I found a picture of my fathers KO'd tank. If you send me your email I will send it to you
Email address can be found under the about tab.
weird,and lame music,after the intro,thats perfect,come on fool,really
Like I said before, you can pay 13 euro on Patreon every month for copyrighted music, but you're probably to foolish to understand how it works on UA-cam or how you can find the Mute button.
all this is really of no importance as the US armour Tanks and M10/36 never engaged any panzer 4 or tigers at all, those German tanks
were only encountered by the British and Canadian troops in the northern part of France and in Belgium and Holland. No US tank or
tank destroyer ever fired on any Panzer 4 or Tiger in the European war, they were never in the same sector. I wish the USA would stop making up war stories.
citation needed.
were did you get this information from, this TD was used in Battle of the Bulge and there were Panzer IV and VI at the Bulge.
@@PanzerInsight And where are the numbers of all the Panthers and Tigers knocked out by the M10/36?
On Wiki, I could find a few cases where Panthers were destroyed but no mention of Tigers and Tiger IIs were very hard to knock out.
Of course, to destroy German heavy tanks, the American tankdestroyers had to be lucky to face them in battle. Peiper's Gruppe had most of the German heavy tanks but in his sector, he only encountered US combat engineers with bazookas and explosives.
His Gruppe was halted by lack of fuel, not by the large number of destroyed tanks on his own side.
@@AudieHolland the Tiger II number 222 at Stavelot was literally knocked out by a M10. The whole thing is pretty well archived.
@@PanzerInsight Sure, that's one. But where do people get the impression that M10/36s 'were killing Panthers and Tigers by the dozen or hundreds?'
Most heavy tanks were simply abandoned by the Germans when they ran out of fuel or their gearbox broke down.
I will believe that Panthers were destroyed on more occassions because they are quite vulnerable to begin with from any decent anti tank cannon, including the 57mm (side shot).
Bad copy of a PANTHER..!
Wasn't at all a copy of the Panther, it was an upgrade to the M10, and it proofed to be one of the best tank destroyers of WW2 and the Korean war were it had no problem knocking out any tank on the field.
Not even close to a Panther, because the Panther wss a pile of junk.
Thunder check I wouldn’t call it a pile of junk, when used right, it was a formidable opponent, then again, us and soviet tanks could do the same, but cheaper, making them the “better” tank strategy wise. The panthers and tigers were better tactics wise, and the tiger being a breakthrough tank, meant that it wasn’t designed for the combat it experienced from late 1943 to 1945, the Panther was basically an expensive t34 but heavier. It’s slow turret traverse and pretty long reload and weak side armour made it very bad in defence, something the nazis were from 1943 onwards.
👍
👍