Back in early 70s my neighbor had sherman tank in his backyard. His son and i would climb in and all over that thing for our war games and maneuvers(at 8-9 years old). What a privilege.
Lt. Col Abrams was a Tank Commander in WW2 and he drove a M4A3E8 with modified Armor plates that nicknamed "Thunderbolt VII". His namesake is what the M1 Abrams was called today.
And it had deceptively strong armor. I used to be in the Sherman hating crowd. But the more I learn, the more i Like it. The 75 was under-gunned to kill a cat, but I doubt having a bigger gun would have ended the war sooner, or even saved a measurable amount of lives. Damn fine tank.
@@leoa4c fuck that, I'll rather be be able to get out of a Sherman within seconds than struggle unscrewing the hatches and burning alive. And not always burning because of enemy fire...
JaMoond Yes, but the Panther is also vulnerable to flank attacks. Number won’t help if your crews were inexperienced and you are outflanked. Watch Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch on Panther, and you will see that Panther is not much better than Sherman at close range.
Also , They said the turret on the Panthers were very slow compared to the Sherman's. A Sherman could get off three shots before a Panther could even fire one if it had to turn the turret around. With good strategy, the Sherman is a superior tank because of it's road and turret speed.
Nearly 4000 Sherman were sent to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease. I have read that the Soviets liked the American tank. Before the Russians attacked the Japanese in Manchuria they received 500 new Sherman’s and they welcomed its rugged dependability
This reminds me of an interview I saw with a former German Panther crewman. He talked about how they weren't concerned with the Shermans, and how the Sherman shells would bounce off. Then he talked about how his tank was knocked out. By a Sherman. He apparently failed to see the problem with his first statement.
And there you have it. By late 1944 especially in the west, the Germans had mostly lost their ability to do as effectively in combat as they had 2-4 years earlier. They might have had impressive equipment, but it was in short supply, and while equipment, supplies and resources were not enough, manpower was even more insufficient. They could no longer enjoy the abundance of competent, well trained fighters they had back in 41-42, and while they had some great machines they no longer had that many great crews to give them to. Essential elements of the detachments such as recon in this case were non existent. In this war and in their situation it's only normal that such a moment would eventually come. Effectively for the scale of WWII they were already defeated, they just had some fight left in them somehow.
Actually it started in 43, when they stripped there tank schools of tank training officers to make a couple elite panzer lehr, divisions. When both lehr divisions were essentially destroyed they no longer had those elite officers at the school or in the field to train the dwindling panzer forces.
Most German equipment at this stage of the war was junk. They were using slave labor, their industries were getting bombed on a daily basis and they were improvising. They may have had superior equipment in 1941 but not in late '44.
Thanks, another great detail video of a small but significant battle. As much as we like to talk about the superiority of individual German tanks, large numbers of almost good enough with a real combined arms attack will almost always prevail.
Sar Jim, just don't forget the many brave Allied tank crews who knowingly went into battle, sacrificing themselves to the German tankers so that the second or third Sherman could get a decent shot at the side or rear of the Panther or Tiger. They did not call the Sherman's "Zippos", or "Tommy Cookers" for no reason. In the last year of the war, the Germans were bled dry by the Russians, and though fanatical, the young crews of the Nazi tanks were without experience, totally depending on the few officers who had survived the war in the east, to guide them in the situations that they found themselves. The up gunned Sherman's (Fireflies) were still inferior to the best that the Germans were able to put in the field. The best that can be said is that the American Shermans definitely out numbered the Nazi armour. Now in the east, the T34's, that is another story.
each time i see the notification i am like.. OMFG I HOPE ITS A NEW WAR STORY FROM M.FELTON, even though i am more interested on technical matters (engineering tactics strategy logistics etc) i find your videos are the most entertaining
Great video. Most debates about tank combat focus on the qualities of the opposing tanks. But this video nicely shows how things like crew quality and reconnaissance are even more decisive than the tanks themselves.
After learning about the greater armor and firepower of the German tanks, I wondered how Sherman tanks could have been effective. Now I know. Thank you. Thumbs up.
Incase anyone wonders, the reason Panthers didn't go at their top speed or turn the hull to help the main traverse is because of the weak final drives, the Panther at its heaviest was 15 tons overweight for the drive train it had, it does make you wonder why though the Germans put the Panther's engine into of all things, the King Tiger??
The engine was underpowered for the tiger 2 most definitely, however most of the early 100 tiger 2s suffered heavy losses due to drivetrain issues (at 90% losses) and usually the engine was in mint condition. Later king tigers had mostly solved mechanical problems (to a degree, neutral steering was still forbidden), but not the offroad mobility, and horrendous fuel consumption issues.
Did you notice how slow the turret traversed on the panther? There is reason why we had power Traverse on the Sherman. Can't figure out why the Germans didn't.
Panther's turret traverse issues were partially fixed after the first production run. Using the engine power to boost the system, a full traverse could be done in 15 seconds (same as the Sherman) but required good coordination between the gunner and the driver.
This was typical for both Germany and Japan. The longer the war went on the lower the standards of training and experience. And what made it worse was the fact that whose with experience rarely got involved in training.
there was 14 year olds fighting for the US in normandy and in japan and there was kids fighting for the hitler youth in the last days of the war. i doubt it was just training
Part of the problem that the Axis powers had, none of the countries in the axis had planned for a protracted War. Then is war progressed and fuel supplies became short, the Axis powers training programs had to be abbreviated because of the scarcity of fuel. This if I could not just the armored units but also their respective Air Forces. The Japanese in particular with their carrier-based airpower found it impossible to adapt their training program to the attrition rate that became apparent after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. The Germans regardless of the branch of service fought until they died with no rotation. United States was probably the best positioned of the combatants. The possibility of attacking the continental United States was limited. The United States was also rich and resources and infrastructure. Combined the United States was able two out produce any of the other combatants. The United States was also shipping fuel to the Allies in different theaters War. We sent everything from Band-Aids to rations, blood plasma to bullets and raw materials.
@@jesuschristlovesyouandyour5755 the final death throes of a nation state, you see the children and the grandparents March off to fight. In Germany's case they had whole divisions of guys with fallen arches. They had divisions segregated by various other maladies. Especially those rejected as unfit for service were grouped together and divisions with the same problems. That's when you scrape up the bottom of the barrel.
@@Krapfelapfen I understand what you mean. I was thinking more that their behaviour was typical in that their actions were the same. Maybe I should have worded it better.
Good to see a video that actually points out the good features of the much maligned M4. When used correctly by well trained crews it was an effective machine. Great job once again Mark
The notion that traversing the Panther's turret required 60 seconds for a full circle is fairly inaccurate: that was only in the very first models that saw action but the flaw was soon fixed with a system that linked the rotaion speed to the engine revs. At high revs the full circle required only 15 seconds and just a few more with the rev limiter on. At Arracourt the Panther had definitely this system implemented.
A deep tactical understanding of how tanks can operate, their limitations and vulnerabilities is the key. You don't need the best gun, the strongest armour or the fastest tank. You just need a good enough tank.
Whereboo logic: If it doesn't have a massive gun or extremely thick armor, it's a bad tank. Glad to see people are re-igniting the Sherman's popularity after it's decades long tarnishing.
@@TheIzroda I do not see any Americans think we won the war by ourselves. That is quite a strawman. And what is wrong with what he said? A lot if people do judge tanks based on armor, speed and guns.
TheIzroda Real American Logic: If it's durable, still works and can kill anything, do anything and run. It's a good Tank. Nice to see some Krauts wanking over their Tanks that were large, so large that they can be an easy target for our AT-Guns and Artillery.
Well, just to be fair: 'The Germans generally preferred hydraulic traverse systems for their heavy tanks (Panthers and Tigers). For their medium tanks, they used an electric traverse system powered by a gasoline generator. The Panther Ausf. D (first mark) and Tiger I Ausf. H featured a hydraulic turret traverse system that could perform a 360-degree rotation in 60 seconds, independent of engine speed, or a 360-degree rotation in 19 seconds with the engine at 2,000 rpm. This was not good, so a new system was devised. The Boehringer-Sturm L4S hydraulic motor saw service on the Panther Ausf. A and G and the Tiger II, and featured a hydraulic traverse that varied with engine speed. The motor was linked to the main engine via a secondary drive shaft. In the gunner’s station, a “high” and “low” range switch allowed the gunner some control over the turret traverse speed. Here are the 360-degree traverse times for the Tiger II: low gear, independent of engine speed: 60 seconds high gear, engine at 1,000 rpm: 36 seconds (46 seconds for the Panther) high gear, engine at 1,500 rpm: 25 seconds high gear, engine at 2,000 rpm: 19 seconds high gear, engine at redline 3,000 rpm: 10 seconds (15 seconds for Panther)'
First time I've heard a Sherman coming out on top against later war German tanks I've had a lot of firsts since I came across your channel thank you it's good to learn
The only things that raised my eyebrow was "The M4 was inferior in armor to the Panzer IV" The only place in which the Panzer IV had more armor (in raw thickness) was the front of the hull, 80mm at almost 90° degrees. The M4 had either 50mm at 57° or 63mm at 47°, so it was pretty much the same in terms of protection. But overall the M4 had better armor. Apart from that it was a great video!
The thing about the Sherman while not perfect was the right machine for the Army at the time and what the Army needed at the time. People forget that they were making them in Detroit and they had to to be shipped to Europe. So with that in mind, it had to be transportable using the transport system in place at the time, it had to be durable and reliable and easy to work on. It met all the requirements. The Crews were properly trained and supported for the most part so it's all moot, Germany lost the war and they had done that long before Abrams was rolling across France in the summer of 44!
Wittmann would traverse the tracks to aim the gun, it was much faster than moving the turret..a tactic he brought from his experience with assault guns earlier in the war.
Any tank is very useful when used with forethought. The Germans won all their victories in the first half of the war with inferior tanks to what their opponents had.
It is quite populair these days talking shit about Shermans. In fact the Panthers sides were not much better than of the Sherman: Slightly sloped 40mm vs. Vertical 38mm. And better a bit lesser gun (the Shermans long 76mm) which you can aim than a superior one which one can't: 1 minute to traverse 360, that is quite dissapointing!
Chris Needham "Used with forethought the Sherman was a very useful tank." Excellent comment, but you should have stopped there. The Panther's superiority over the Sherman was and is no myth.
I passed through arracourt around the time that video was published and wondered if anything notable hapenned over there when i saw the sherman in the village. It marked me to see how far appart houses are from an oversized road, which are unusual compared to the typical villages of Lorraine/Moselle. I'm glad to finally find some informations about it though it confirms what i thought considering where it is.
Creighton Abrams (name sake of the latest and now fairly old American tank) is a much loved figure in the Army and nearly unknown out of it. He commanded American forces in Vietnam after Westmorland from 68 to close. Under him the orientation of that command changed from victory to self preservation. His biggest and not very long lasting contribution to the America military was his making it impossible to use the very large Army w/o calling up very large elements of it's reserve. It was really just a bit of reshuffling but the institutional Army felt it had been misused badly and silently in Vietnam so they loved him for it. It lasted until the first Gulf War when the Army realized it's classic division formations were bloated and obsolete. We still have "divisions" but they deploy now as regiments. Sub formations like intelligence medical and civil affairs companies will often serve one two or three regiments operating when necessary far away from each other. The classic division is two or three combat regiments plus one support. It was expected to tend it's wounded and gather it's own information. Creighton's integration of reserve companies into Brigades made deployment w/o the public being fully aware a lot more difficult (but not impossible). The down side was training for the reserves was always bad and never improved. No reserve combat unit slated for deployment in the first Gulf War ever came up to speed and none deployed. For the second gulf war the problem was obviated by just deploying them anyway. Everybody picks and chooses their heroes I guess. If Creighton was the Army's general Westmorland was the g.i.'s. The media went out of it's way to vilify the man but he was always popular with the little guy.
It would be interesting to hear your take on the British contribution to the Battle of the Bulge, I know it was covered up at the time and there aren't many books that go into any detail on it, but having just read " The Battle of the Bulge Britain's Untold Story " by Charles Whiting I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about it. Keep up the good work
I read that book a few yeaes ago. Very good read . As I recall it was Montys irritating 'I saved your arses' attitude that was the reason it was later downplayed
DONALDSON51 Monty was a difficult and misunderstood bloke, but if you understand (his) rather than the US press’s vernacular, then he was trying to compliment the US soldiers involved in the Ardennes offensive, it is often pointed out that numerous US troops liked and respected him, not least because he took the trouble to come and talk to them about what ‘the team’ was trying to achieve!
@@pcka12 I agree. For all of his critics nobody cared more about the lives of his men than monty (british and american) he certainly cared more about his mens lives than patton. And for all of the criticism about him taking too long in his preparations it was only because he wanted his attacks to succeed with minimal losses to his men
@@Sonofdonald2024 Montgomery became a whipping boy for any US general that had made a mistake, deflect the heat onto this irritating man and they often got away with things that a more scrupulous US senate may otherwise have investigated. A case in point being Bradleys far too thin front line in the Ardennes which Eisenhower actually questioned him about before the German offensive. Once the offensive had been beaten then all of the US vitriol was directed at Monty for seeming to claim the victory when he was actually doing nothing of the sort and this distracted US public opinion very nicely for the numerous US commanders who had failed their men in the field. The dogged resistance of numerous GI's separated and alone acting on their own initiatives is what defeated the Germans, US generals had almost no effect until at least three days into the offensive.
they had better reconaisance and even took advantage of the German tanks' weakness which are weak side armor, low turret traverse speed, and noisy engine. so basically it was a great show of coordination, tactics, individual skill and especially to know German tanks' weaknesses. but what blows up my mind was that horrible turret traverse speed of the panther
Head to flank to kill the tank. Reminds me of the nimble English fleet running circles around the Spanish Armada. Thanks Mark, another great little video.
I’ve been to see that panther in the thumbnail! It’s at the tank museum. It was actually made in an allied factory and painted with a very late war german camouflage which was made due the lack of paint so it incorporated the red oxide primer
Why didn`t you fight us right at the beginning of the war then but instead supplied us with oil and other war relevant goods?! Sure, you`ve been afraid and let the russians do all the work for you, while you claim yourself a Victor. At that point in time you`ve been like voltures flying to a dead body or a soccer player scoring the 7:0 in the 90th minute after getting put on the pitch 5 minutes earlier . From todays point of view all of this isn`t a suprise to annyone else then you, since your country relied on those coward strategies the past 70 years. You should have fought Nazi Germany when their supply chains were working and they could use their intended battle tactics. And at that point I want to see you sitting in a sherman saying that very sentence facing some PZ4`s. You would have drowned in your own piss while sitting in that iron coffin called sherman.
Krupp steal,....a losing strategy. It was like Japan in the Pacific, Hitler shot his wad and then Germany got completely crushed. Anyone can sucker punch their opponent, but guess what, after that perfect haymaker, you have to finish the fight
My Uncle Jack, a TC with the 2nd Armored Division, was shot out of two M4's from Normandy to the Elbe. He never had too much bad to say about the Sherman and seemed to appreciate the later M4A3 with the 76mm and the improved/protected stowage. He certainly understood that one on one they were at a disadvantage against the Mark V and the very few Mark VI Panzers they came up against but their artillery and air support made up for it. According to him the few German POWs he had direct contact with were terrified of US artillery for its accuracy, concentration and the speed of which it could be brought to bear on a target. Way to go cannon cockers!
I would very much like to see your take on the IR equipped Panthers which supposedly fought on the western and eastern fronts at the end of the war. Great videos, keep them coming. Congratulations on passing 50K :D
I know WW1 isnt your main subject but please could you do a vid on La Hammel. Monash' name should be known for his contribution to modern warfare tactics. His name is being lost to history and its a name that should be remembered.
The wheel action on two rows keeping the track motion smoothe on the Panthers is as they say ‘poetry in motion’. An interesting programme might be on how the Finnish soldiery successfully opposed Russian tanks with virtually no specialised equipment in the Winter War.
I would use the term"better" with reservation when describing the Pzkmpw v as it did have a more powerful cannon,more frontal armor but that is where it ends,M4 Sherman much quicker turret travererse,faster simpler field maintenance, more reliable motor and easily interchangeable suspension with 80% of American AFV's..Great video
IMO the Sherman comes in for a lot of bad press. Fighting other tanks was clearly vital, but only a small proportion of a Sherman's use in the West. Only a minority of knocked out Shermans, 14-20% were the work of tanks/SPGs. The vanilla Shermans' main disadvantage was that they were on the offensive when the vast majority of tank vs tank engagements were won by those firing first regardless of the models involved, with a clear advantage to the defending side. When the Germans attacked they suffered just as badly as the Shermans did, as was shown in many engagements in Normandy when the Germans counter-attacked. Of course, Sherman Fireflys, more of which were produced than Tiger 1s and King Tigers combined, could compete with Panthers and Tigers on fairly even terms; they outnumbered Tigers and Panthers in Normandy by over 2:1 and racked up impressive scores, with eg Sgt Harris knocking out 5 Panthers with 5 shots at Tilly-Sur-Seulles.
I worked with a German machinist, Otto Shaefer, who was a Panther gunner and was hit and caught fire in France. He was captured by Americans and spent 6 months in a hospital for the burns. I wonder if this was his battle?
So much for those who called the Sherman a poor tank. It was the best medium infantry support tank of the war bar none. It excelled at what it was designed to do. It even did well defeating superior heavy main battle tanks. Something they were not designed to do.
About Panther’s side armour: German field assessment after Kursk was that tank’s armour was so thin that it was vulnerable to obsolete Soviet AT rifles. They concluded that Panthers must advance with tight 200m spaced line in order to protect each other’s sides (which was made even more difficult as most of them had to be recalled to the factory due to endemic mechanical failures).
I think one of things that made the Sherman such a success was Patton played the part of being very boisterous and attack happy, yet he was smart enough to rely on information from his intelligence chief, Col. Oscar Koch.
The only thing I'd point out is the 76mm was more powerful than the long 75 on the PZ. IV but of course in this battle 4th AD had mostly 75mm equipped Shermans. I'd also say it's not entirely accurate to say the Panther is "superior" as the Sherman had many advantages over it that actually even things out.
Everyone thinks of tanks in terms of speed, armor thickness and gun size, that's why people always overlook the Sherman. Things like unity sights, the ability of the commander to override turret control, turret traverse speed, repair-ability in the field, crew compartment size, effective armor angling, spring loaded hatches and crew survivability are things no-one thinks about, but are the things that win wars and let the Sherman succeed in almost every battle against panthers, even with a numbers disadvantage.
Back in early 70s my neighbor had sherman tank in his backyard. His son and i would climb in and all over that thing for our war games and maneuvers(at 8-9 years old). What a privilege.
they should consider naming a tank after that Abrams guy.. never heard of him.
Well... There is this tank called a M1 Abrams, perhaps it is named after him... ;)
Lt. Col Abrams was a Tank Commander in WW2 and he drove a M4A3E8 with modified Armor plates that nicknamed "Thunderbolt VII".
His namesake is what the M1 Abrams was called today.
r/whoosh
White343 r/swoosh
You are 40 years too late.....ever heard of the M1
You know what a Sherman had that hardly any German tank had? FUEL!
And a reliable transmission
Amazing how much difference that makes in an armored engagement :-) (well, that and recon, in this case).
Easy to repair, spareparts the list goes on.
And it had deceptively strong armor. I used to be in the Sherman hating crowd. But the more I learn, the more i Like it. The 75 was under-gunned to kill a cat, but I doubt having a bigger gun would have ended the war sooner, or even saved a measurable amount of lives. Damn fine tank.
Yes, that fuel had to come all the way across the ocean. What was the German's excuse?
Wait. What? I thought that M4's automatically blew up and burned whenever a German tank appeared.
2 to 1 against a tank that is considered superior... that's impressive.
@@leoa4c fuck that, I'll rather be be able to get out of a Sherman within seconds than struggle unscrewing the hatches and burning alive. And not always burning because of enemy fire...
JaMoond Yes, but the Panther is also vulnerable to flank attacks. Number won’t help if your crews were inexperienced and you are outflanked.
Watch Inside the Chieftain’s Hatch on Panther, and you will see that Panther is not much better than Sherman at close range.
Also , They said the turret on the Panthers were very slow compared to the Sherman's. A Sherman could get off three shots before a Panther could even fire one if it had to turn the turret around. With good strategy, the Sherman is a superior tank because of it's road and turret speed.
Another Mark Felton five minute masterpiece! Our British brothers sure know how to do documentaries with style and grace.
Nearly 4000 Sherman were sent to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease. I have read that the Soviets liked the American tank. Before the Russians attacked the Japanese in Manchuria they received 500 new Sherman’s and they welcomed its rugged dependability
This reminds me of an interview I saw with a former German Panther crewman. He talked about how they weren't concerned with the Shermans, and how the Sherman shells would bounce off. Then he talked about how his tank was knocked out. By a Sherman. He apparently failed to see the problem with his first statement.
And there you have it. By late 1944 especially in the west, the Germans had mostly lost their ability to do as effectively in combat as they had 2-4 years earlier. They might have had impressive equipment, but it was in short supply, and while equipment, supplies and resources were not enough, manpower was even more insufficient. They could no longer enjoy the abundance of competent, well trained fighters they had back in 41-42, and while they had some great machines they no longer had that many great crews to give them to. Essential elements of the detachments such as recon in this case were non existent. In this war and in their situation it's only normal that such a moment would eventually come.
Effectively for the scale of WWII they were already defeated, they just had some fight left in them somehow.
Not to mention the Germans’ loss of air superiority, affecting intelligence, air support and air defence.
Actually it started in 43, when they stripped there tank schools of tank training officers to make a couple elite panzer lehr, divisions. When both lehr divisions were essentially destroyed they no longer had those elite officers at the school or in the field to train the dwindling panzer forces.
@@sophrapsune Yea didn't want to mention it cause it's been went over many times, but good thing you said it.
@@rickmoreno6858 Wow that's... astonishingly unwise of them
Most German equipment at this stage of the war was junk. They were using slave labor, their industries were getting bombed on a daily basis and they were improvising. They may have had superior equipment in 1941 but not in late '44.
These little nuggets of entertaining history just keep on coming. Thank Mark 👍
Just goes to show that a well experienced and skill tank crew or any fighting force can beat a force that is on paper superior in any terms.
Germany should have known about this with their experience in the east in 1940 against the KV series.
After watching a Submarine video, they said crew morale (after training) was everything
Superior on paper? No, how are poorly maintained tanks driven by barely trained 16 years olds better on paper than what the allies had?
Here's a good example of that.
The Battle of Samar - Odds? What are those?
ua-cam.com/video/4AdcvDiA3lE/v-deo.html
Thanks, another great detail video of a small but significant battle. As much as we like to talk about the superiority of individual German tanks, large numbers of almost good enough with a real combined arms attack will almost always prevail.
Sar Jim, just don't forget the many brave Allied tank crews who knowingly went into battle, sacrificing themselves to the German tankers so that the second or third Sherman could get a decent shot at the side or rear of the Panther or Tiger. They did not call the Sherman's "Zippos", or "Tommy Cookers" for no reason. In the last year of the war, the Germans were bled dry by the Russians, and though fanatical, the young crews of the Nazi tanks were without experience, totally depending on the few officers who had survived the war in the east, to guide them in the situations that they found themselves. The up gunned Sherman's (Fireflies) were still inferior to the best that the Germans were able to put in the field. The best that can be said is that the American Shermans definitely out numbered the Nazi armour. Now in the east, the T34's, that is another story.
each time i see the notification i am like.. OMFG I HOPE ITS A NEW WAR STORY FROM M.FELTON, even though i am more interested on technical matters (engineering tactics strategy logistics etc) i find your videos are the most entertaining
Great video. Most debates about tank combat focus on the qualities of the opposing tanks. But this video nicely shows how things like crew quality and reconnaissance are even more decisive than the tanks themselves.
After learning about the greater armor and firepower of the German tanks, I wondered how Sherman tanks could have been effective. Now I know. Thank you. Thumbs up.
Incase anyone wonders, the reason Panthers didn't go at their top speed or turn the hull to help the main traverse is because of the weak final drives, the Panther at its heaviest was 15 tons overweight for the drive train it had, it does make you wonder why though the Germans put the Panther's engine into of all things, the King Tiger??
The engine was underpowered for the tiger 2 most definitely, however most of the early 100 tiger 2s suffered heavy losses due to drivetrain issues (at 90% losses) and usually the engine was in mint condition. Later king tigers had mostly solved mechanical problems (to a degree, neutral steering was still forbidden), but not the offroad mobility, and horrendous fuel consumption issues.
Did you notice how slow the turret traversed on the panther? There is reason why we had power Traverse on the Sherman. Can't figure out why the Germans didn't.
Panther's turret traverse issues were partially fixed after the first production run. Using the engine power to boost the system, a full traverse could be done in 15 seconds (same as the Sherman) but required good coordination between the gunner and the driver.
This was typical for both Germany and Japan. The longer the war went on the lower the standards of training and experience. And what made it worse was the fact that whose with experience rarely got involved in training.
there was 14 year olds fighting for the US in normandy and in japan and there was kids fighting for the hitler youth in the last days of the war. i doubt it was just training
Big Blue this is not typical for both nations rather than the situation of both nations.
Part of the problem that the Axis powers had, none of the countries in the axis had planned for a protracted War. Then is war progressed and fuel supplies became short, the Axis powers training programs had to be abbreviated because of the scarcity of fuel. This if I could not just the armored units but also their respective Air Forces. The Japanese in particular with their carrier-based airpower found it impossible to adapt their training program to the attrition rate that became apparent after the battles of the Coral Sea and Midway. The Germans regardless of the branch of service fought until they died with no rotation. United States was probably the best positioned of the combatants. The possibility of attacking the continental United States was limited. The United States was also rich and resources and infrastructure. Combined the United States was able two out produce any of the other combatants. The United States was also shipping fuel to the Allies in different theaters War. We sent everything from Band-Aids to rations, blood plasma to bullets and raw materials.
@@jesuschristlovesyouandyour5755 the final death throes of a nation state, you see the children and the grandparents March off to fight. In Germany's case they had whole divisions of guys with fallen arches. They had divisions segregated by various other maladies. Especially those rejected as unfit for service were grouped together and divisions with the same problems. That's when you scrape up the bottom of the barrel.
@@Krapfelapfen I understand what you mean. I was thinking more that their behaviour was typical in that their actions were the same. Maybe I should have worded it better.
What an amazing story of the Sherman's actual advantages as an actual tank! Not just a readily producible product
Whenever Mark has a new video up, i'm here!
Good to see a video that actually points out the good features of the much maligned M4. When used correctly by well trained crews it was an effective machine. Great job once again Mark
Mr Mark Felton, your presentations are knowledgeable , informative, interesting and also full of surprises
Fantastic story! I never thought (again) that the Sherman and a well trained crew could defeat those big Tanks. Keep it up with your great videos!
The notion that traversing the Panther's turret required 60 seconds for a full circle is fairly inaccurate: that was only in the very first models that saw action but the flaw was soon fixed with a system that linked the rotaion speed to the engine revs. At high revs the full circle required only 15 seconds and just a few more with the rev limiter on. At Arracourt the Panther had definitely this system implemented.
The Sherman was not a bad tank, it was actually good for what it was/had to do.
85 views, 20 likes in 4 minutes. Better make that 21 likes.
Congrats now you had 34 likes
As said by captain Rex in Star Wars "experience outranks everything"
One of my great uncles was a platoon commander in C Co 37th tank battalion and was awarded the silver star at Arracourt.
A deep tactical understanding of how tanks can operate, their limitations and vulnerabilities is the key. You don't need the best gun, the strongest armour or the fastest tank. You just need a good enough tank.
Whereboo logic: If it doesn't have a massive gun or extremely thick armor, it's a bad tank. Glad to see people are re-igniting the Sherman's popularity after it's decades long tarnishing.
@@TheIzroda I do not see any Americans think we won the war by ourselves. That is quite a strawman. And what is wrong with what he said? A lot if people do judge tanks based on armor, speed and guns.
Salty Wehraboo^
@@TheIzroda What does that have to do with what he said lol. He was talking about the individual superiority of the tanks.
@@TheIzroda LOL salty ass triggered weherboo bitch
TheIzroda Real American Logic: If it's durable, still works and can kill anything, do anything and run. It's a good Tank. Nice to see some Krauts wanking over their Tanks that were large, so large that they can be an easy target for our AT-Guns and Artillery.
Many thanks to you, Mark.
Your amounts of historical footage is impressive. Thanks for giving us videos regularly.
Well, just to be fair:
'The Germans generally preferred hydraulic traverse systems for their heavy tanks (Panthers and Tigers). For their medium tanks, they used an electric traverse system powered by a gasoline generator.
The Panther Ausf. D (first mark) and Tiger I Ausf. H featured a hydraulic turret traverse system that could perform a 360-degree rotation in 60 seconds, independent of engine speed, or a 360-degree rotation in 19 seconds with the engine at 2,000 rpm.
This was not good, so a new system was devised. The Boehringer-Sturm L4S hydraulic motor saw service on the Panther Ausf. A and G and the Tiger II, and featured a hydraulic traverse that varied with engine speed. The motor was linked to the main engine via a secondary drive shaft. In the gunner’s station, a “high” and “low” range switch allowed the gunner some control over the turret traverse speed. Here are the 360-degree traverse times for the Tiger II:
low gear, independent of engine speed: 60 seconds
high gear, engine at 1,000 rpm: 36 seconds (46 seconds for the Panther)
high gear, engine at 1,500 rpm: 25 seconds
high gear, engine at 2,000 rpm: 19 seconds
high gear, engine at redline 3,000 rpm: 10 seconds (15 seconds for Panther)'
Panther also risked the chance of breaking its engine running at RPMs that high
The Germans used hydraulic systems for turret traverse because electric systems required copper, which had always been in very short supply.
Play to your strength`s, and their weakness`. This, and many more actions like it, is why Creighton Abrams got a tank named after him.
I was a Tank crewman in the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment
and also in Germany with the 3rd Armored Division "Spearhead" for 6 years.
I loved my Tank :)
Wow what an incredible story! How have I never heard this one before?!
It was covered in that tv tank series some years back - forget the name. Google battle of arracourt.
I love these videos each one feels like it’s a professional documentary keep up the amazing work
Proof that it's not the tank as much as it is how well the crew is trained.
Why would someone dislike this? It's fucking awesome!
another fine Felton production 👍🏻
Your channel is growing fast! Keep up the good work mark!
Thank you for another great video 😀
First time I've heard a Sherman coming out on top against later war German tanks I've had a lot of firsts since I came across your channel thank you it's good to learn
It happened all the time. In almost every battle
Another brilliant production
The only things that raised my eyebrow was
"The M4 was inferior in armor to the Panzer IV"
The only place in which the Panzer IV had more armor (in raw thickness) was the front of the hull, 80mm at almost 90° degrees. The M4 had either 50mm at 57° or 63mm at 47°, so it was pretty much the same in terms of protection.
But overall the M4 had better armor.
Apart from that it was a great video!
I love your channel really enjoy these little stories that don't get much attention
I have been researching the Metz campaign for awhile. Glad you made this video.
The thing about the Sherman while not perfect was the right machine for the Army at the time and what the Army needed at the time. People forget that they were making them in Detroit and they had to to be shipped to Europe. So with that in mind, it had to be transportable using the transport system in place at the time, it had to be durable and reliable and easy to work on. It met all the requirements. The Crews were properly trained and supported for the most part so it's all moot, Germany lost the war and they had done that long before Abrams was rolling across France in the summer of 44!
Just goes to show superior tactics can defeat superior numbers and equipment.
Wittmann would traverse the tracks to aim the gun, it was much faster than moving the turret..a tactic he brought from his experience with assault guns earlier in the war.
See The Chieftain’s presentation on Myths surrounding US Armor in WW 2
Extraordinary tankmanship.
Another myth blown open. Used with forethought the Sherman was a very useful tank.
Any tank is very useful when used with forethought. The Germans won all their victories in the first half of the war with inferior tanks to what their opponents had.
But if the German crew was experienced and has the same support as the Americans, the Germans would have won i think.
It is quite populair these days talking shit about Shermans.
In fact the Panthers sides were not much better than of the Sherman: Slightly sloped 40mm vs. Vertical 38mm.
And better a bit lesser gun (the Shermans long 76mm) which you can aim than a superior one which one can't: 1 minute to traverse 360, that is quite dissapointing!
It was the crews battle hardened experience that one the day.
Chris Needham "Used with forethought the Sherman was a very useful tank." Excellent comment, but you should have stopped there. The Panther's superiority over the Sherman was and is no myth.
Its not always the size of youre gun that matters, its more about how you use it🔥
Another excellent video Mark !! :)
I passed through arracourt around the time that video was published and wondered if anything notable hapenned over there when i saw the sherman in the village. It marked me to see how far appart houses are from an oversized road, which are unusual compared to the typical villages of Lorraine/Moselle. I'm glad to finally find some informations about it though it confirms what i thought considering where it is.
Tanks for the up load Mark. Did you see what I did there?
Creighton Abrams (name sake of the latest and now fairly old American tank) is a much loved figure in the Army and nearly unknown out of it. He commanded American forces in Vietnam after Westmorland from 68 to close. Under him the orientation of that command changed from victory to self preservation. His biggest and not very long lasting contribution to the America military was his making it impossible to use the very large Army w/o calling up very large elements of it's reserve. It was really just a bit of reshuffling but the institutional Army felt it had been misused badly and silently in Vietnam so they loved him for it. It lasted until the first Gulf War when the Army realized it's classic division formations were bloated and obsolete. We still have "divisions" but they deploy now as regiments. Sub formations like intelligence medical and civil affairs companies will often serve one two or three regiments operating when necessary far away from each other. The classic division is two or three combat regiments plus one support. It was expected to tend it's wounded and gather it's own information. Creighton's integration of reserve companies into Brigades made deployment w/o the public being fully aware a lot more difficult (but not impossible). The down side was training for the reserves was always bad and never improved. No reserve combat unit slated for deployment in the first Gulf War ever came up to speed and none deployed. For the second gulf war the problem was obviated by just deploying them anyway. Everybody picks and chooses their heroes I guess. If Creighton was the Army's general Westmorland was the g.i.'s. The media went out of it's way to vilify the man but he was always popular with the little guy.
True that-- that's why the M-1 is named after him.
Another excellent piece. As ever insightful and accurate
It would be interesting to hear your take on the British contribution to the Battle of the Bulge, I know it was covered up at the time and there aren't many books that go into any detail on it, but having just read " The Battle of the Bulge Britain's Untold Story " by Charles Whiting I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about it. Keep up the good work
I read that book a few yeaes ago. Very good read . As I recall it was Montys irritating 'I saved your arses' attitude that was the reason it was later downplayed
DONALDSON51 Monty was a difficult and misunderstood bloke, but if you understand (his) rather than the US press’s vernacular, then he was trying to compliment the US soldiers involved in the Ardennes offensive, it is often pointed out that numerous US troops liked and respected him, not least because he took the trouble to come and talk to them about what ‘the team’ was trying to achieve!
@@pcka12 I agree. For all of his critics nobody cared more about the lives of his men than monty (british and american) he certainly cared more about his mens lives than patton. And for all of the criticism about him taking too long in his preparations it was only because he wanted his attacks to succeed with minimal losses to his men
@@Sonofdonald2024
Montgomery became a whipping boy for any US general that had made a mistake, deflect the heat onto this irritating man and they often got away with things that a more scrupulous US senate may otherwise have investigated.
A case in point being Bradleys far too thin front line in the Ardennes which Eisenhower actually questioned him about before the German offensive.
Once the offensive had been beaten then all of the US vitriol was directed at Monty for seeming to claim the victory when he was actually doing nothing of the sort and this distracted US public opinion very nicely for the numerous US commanders who had failed their men in the field.
The dogged resistance of numerous GI's separated and alone acting on their own initiatives is what defeated the Germans, US generals had almost no effect until at least three days into the offensive.
Awesome video as always!
they had better reconaisance and even took advantage of the German tanks' weakness which are weak side armor, low turret traverse speed, and noisy engine.
so basically it was a great show of coordination, tactics, individual skill and especially to know German tanks' weaknesses.
but what blows up my mind was that horrible turret traverse speed of the panther
Well, the later the war went on, the worse quality tanks germany had
Just look at their engine qualities, they went from average to absolute garbage
Head to flank to kill the tank. Reminds me of the nimble English fleet running circles around the Spanish Armada. Thanks Mark, another great little video.
Subscribed. Great stories. Regards from near ballyragget, Co kilkenny, Ireland
Wow! Never imagined such effective Sherman use!
Great vid!
Excellent video! Very informative.
I’ve been to see that panther in the thumbnail! It’s at the tank museum. It was actually made in an allied factory and painted with a very late war german camouflage which was made due the lack of paint so it incorporated the red oxide primer
Great work as usual!
Better intelligence + more experience = tons of smoking Krupp steel.
Actually MAN steel.
Swedish imports
Why didn`t you fight us right at the beginning of the war then but instead supplied us with oil and other war relevant goods?! Sure, you`ve been afraid and let the russians do all the work for you, while you claim yourself a Victor. At that point in time you`ve been like voltures flying to a dead body or a soccer player scoring the 7:0 in the 90th minute after getting put on the pitch 5 minutes earlier .
From todays point of view all of this isn`t a suprise to annyone else then you, since your country relied on those coward strategies the past 70 years.
You should have fought Nazi Germany when their supply chains were working and they could use their intended battle tactics. And at that point I want to see you sitting in a sherman saying that very sentence facing some PZ4`s. You would have drowned in your own piss while sitting in that iron coffin called sherman.
Krupp steal,....a losing strategy. It was like Japan in the Pacific, Hitler shot his wad and then Germany got completely crushed. Anyone can sucker punch their opponent, but guess what, after that perfect haymaker, you have to finish the fight
My Uncle Jack, a TC with the 2nd Armored Division, was shot out of two M4's from Normandy to the Elbe. He never had too much bad to say about the Sherman and seemed to appreciate the later M4A3 with the 76mm and the improved/protected stowage. He certainly understood that one on one they were at a disadvantage against the Mark V and the very few Mark VI Panzers they came up against but their artillery and air support made up for it. According to him the few German POWs he had direct contact with were terrified of US artillery for its accuracy, concentration and the speed of which it could be brought to bear on a target. Way to go cannon cockers!
I would very much like to see your take on the IR equipped Panthers which supposedly fought on the western and eastern fronts at the end of the war. Great videos, keep them coming. Congratulations on passing 50K :D
God I learn so much from your channel, and its truly interesting as well as smartly made. Bravo sir.
Love your channel, its awesome, make more please!
Well put together!
This guy has a good history channel voice!
I know WW1 isnt your main subject but please could you do a vid on La Hammel. Monash' name should be known for his contribution to modern warfare tactics. His name is being lost to history and its a name that should be remembered.
Great episode!
The wheel action on two rows keeping the track motion smoothe on the Panthers is as they say ‘poetry in motion’.
An interesting programme might be on how the Finnish soldiery successfully opposed Russian tanks with virtually no specialised equipment in the Winter War.
Never knew the traverse was so slow. I'm used to M-60's which comparatively spin like a washing machine.
Nice to know the Sherman could hold its own when in capable hands.
I always watch any video with M-4s to see if can find my Father in one of them.
Another great Video!
Thanks
another example on what difference experience does on the battlefield
The most beautiful tank in WW2.
I would use the term"better" with reservation when describing the Pzkmpw v as it did have a more powerful cannon,more frontal armor but that is where it ends,M4 Sherman much quicker turret travererse,faster simpler field maintenance, more reliable motor and easily interchangeable suspension with 80% of American AFV's..Great video
Combined tactics and the ability to use your strengths to your advantage and overcome technical superiority in many fields.
Don't underestimate the importance of Turret speed when designing your tank
IMO the Sherman comes in for a lot of bad press. Fighting other tanks was clearly vital, but only a small proportion of a Sherman's use in the West. Only a minority of knocked out Shermans, 14-20% were the work of tanks/SPGs.
The vanilla Shermans' main disadvantage was that they were on the offensive when the vast majority of tank vs tank engagements were won by those firing first regardless of the models involved, with a clear advantage to the defending side. When the Germans attacked they suffered just as badly as the Shermans did, as was shown in many engagements in Normandy when the Germans counter-attacked. Of course, Sherman Fireflys, more of which were produced than Tiger 1s and King Tigers combined, could compete with Panthers and Tigers on fairly even terms; they outnumbered Tigers and Panthers in Normandy by over 2:1 and racked up impressive scores, with eg Sgt Harris knocking out 5 Panthers with 5 shots at Tilly-Sur-Seulles.
I think these tank dual videos are my favorite of yours
Another outstanding example of making do with what you have.
"steamroll off the map"....I think Mr Felton has been playing a little to much WoT.
I guess a big gun is much less effective if it takes 4x as long to aim as an ‘inferior’ tank’s gun. Great video.
I worked with a German machinist, Otto Shaefer, who was a Panther gunner and was hit and caught fire in France. He was captured by Americans and spent 6 months in a hospital for the burns. I wonder if this was his battle?
So much for those who called the Sherman a poor tank. It was the best medium infantry support tank of the war bar none. It excelled at what it was designed to do. It even did well defeating superior heavy main battle tanks. Something they were not designed to do.
I don't know if you cover odd firearms, but the curved barrel would be a good one I think.
Brilliant story. Determination and grit win the day.
Great story, thanks!
Excellent ! Sometime would like to watch stories about American/British Jeep's
I own a 43 Ford GPW full restored
About Panther’s side armour: German field assessment after Kursk was that tank’s armour was so thin that it was vulnerable to obsolete Soviet AT rifles. They concluded that Panthers must advance with tight 200m spaced line in order to protect each other’s sides (which was made even more difficult as most of them had to be recalled to the factory due to endemic mechanical failures).
I think one of things that made the Sherman such a success was Patton played the part of being very boisterous and attack happy, yet he was smart enough to rely on information from his intelligence chief, Col. Oscar Koch.
The only thing I'd point out is the 76mm was more powerful than the long 75 on the PZ. IV but of course in this battle 4th AD had mostly 75mm equipped Shermans.
I'd also say it's not entirely accurate to say the Panther is "superior" as the Sherman had many advantages over it that actually even things out.
Everyone thinks of tanks in terms of speed, armor thickness and gun size, that's why people always overlook the Sherman. Things like unity sights, the ability of the commander to override turret control, turret traverse speed, repair-ability in the field, crew compartment size, effective armor angling, spring loaded hatches and crew survivability are things no-one thinks about, but are the things that win wars and let the Sherman succeed in almost every battle against panthers, even with a numbers disadvantage.