A big thank you to our dear friends over at Wargaming for supporting us! Play World of Tanks using this promo code to claim lots of juicy rewards: tanks.ly/3WfhTwz Promo rewards include: - Cromwell B (tier 6) British premium medium tank - 250k credits - 7 days premium access - 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), T78 (Tier 6), Type 64 (Tier 6) The promo code is only for players who register for the first time on the Wargaming portal.
04:42 it wasn't Stalins decision to call the IS tanks after him, the engineer for the IS-1(before it was called that ofc) was quite paranoid (understandably) so he made the decision to make sure he'd be in Stalins favor.
@@canadianoctopus1479 probably he was referring to the IS-1, the KV-85 was a stopgap produced until IS tanks were fielded and ready to be used. To be quick, the IS-1 and the KV-85 are two different tanks.
Most of these heavier tanks were developed based on the assumption that their enemies were also developing heavier vehicles. This is why the Tiger showed up less than a year after the T-34 was first encountered - it wasn't a response to a specific Tank, it was already in development.
One minor correction: the Maus couldn't ford under its own power. It would need to he connected to another Maus via electrical lines so that the 2nd Maus would provide the necessary power to run the electric motors of the 1st Maus.
I completely disagree. The tankiest tank of them all is the almighty and undefeated Bob Semple Tank. There has never been a more menacing armored piece of weaponary ever in the battlefield.
@@trijalupamungkas3808 "The Panzer IV is the unsung workhorse of the Wechmacht" and where exactly in this sentence did it exclude assault guns or TD's ?
Correction: At the start of the war, various nations/empires had medium, and medium to heavy, tanks in service. The British had the Matilda, which the Germans were uanble to knock out without the help of 88's, the Soviets had the KV tank and the French had the Char 2C (which did not see service).
depends how you define heavy tank, Matilda was an infantry tank instead of a medium or heavy KVs were very few in numbers even in 1941 which is 3 years after the war started too
Sherman tank is so underrated. People think its plain and boring. But it was so good at what it was designed for. It was built to a high quality, yet produced in huge numbers. The Sherman was easily maintained, repaired, and upgraded into many different variants. It was just a good, all-around tank.
@@Soldierus3003 well TBF the t 34 was a ridiculously cheap tank due to the it's unreliability as the Soviets cut corners on everything in it to save time and money and it still can server its purpose as a tank
I guess kv-1, tiger 1, was superior at the time of release, bringing a lot of headache to enemies. Is-3 is also great, looks very futuristic at the time.
@@oscarchoy9469 nope it was actually fairly expensive US estimates that if the T34 was built to US standards it would be about as expensive as the Sherman but the T34 wasn’t cheap it was 130,000 roubles
3:24 a little correction: the medium tanks mentioned should have been animated as Panzer 3 or 4 since Panther was only developed after the German ran into them. Also, the Panther is the German response to T-34, not Tiger. The Tiger development already started much earlier
One of the main reasons that the allies didn't invest in heavy monsters, is that they had to transport them. Across oceans in the case of the USA, advancing towards Berlin for all of them. The Germans fighting defensively, we're not wanting to shift them much, if at all.
Correct. It had to be light enough to go on most train flatcars, boats, cranes, and bridges(permanent and temporary). One of the issues the US had with the purshing tank (not counting reliability issues) was most of the infrastructure the entire way from factory to fight couldn't support it.
I think that's a T-10, but that tank (and many other soviet designs) were modeled after the IS-3. Also the T-10 was developed as the IS-8, but was renamed after Stalin's death. The tank shown can be found at the bottom of the IS Wikipedia page. (Yes I'm a nerd, and have too much free time.) Wrong tank shown, but can be forgiven for technical reasons, and also because it's the most recognisable out of the IS series.
the t-34 shown is a t-34/85 a late war variant armed with a 85mm gun the models before it were armed with either a l-11 or f-34 76.2mm gun or a 57mm gun
@@file4130 from what i read on the wiki all ten were lost during fighting around moscow in late 1941, the concept was revisited in 1943, but was dropped in favor of developing the t-34/85
It’s weird so weird how under-appreciated the Sherman is. It’s not flashy, it didn’t have the best armor, and it’s gun was definitely underpowered, but it was a fast, very reliable, ergonomic armored war machine that could be produced int the gazillions. A Panther or Tiger might look formidable on paper, but it couldn’t contribute much when broken down by the side of the road.
sherman was underappreciated a long time ago but it's reputation was flipped within the past 20 years or so. I'd say the sherman is overappreciated now tbh
all those reasons mentioned above! And I'd add to that the factor "Strategic mobility", which was especially important for the Americans, having to ship and rail them across the entire planet. That's why every tank on tank comparison has the caveat that it's not really important which was "the" best tank, but which was the right tank for the circumstances of a particular military. The Sherman definetly was the right tank for the western allies (and even soviet tank crews appreciated it a lot on the eastern front).
Japan used them in their doctrine and classification as medium tanks. Such as a Panther would be a 'heavy' tank purely by classification by the US for example, but Germany used it as a medium tank.
@@jansatamme6521 hitler didn't have anything to do with the armour of the panther, the engineers decided to give it enough frontal armour to resist any weapons the allies were currently fielding. also the uparmoured version of the panther (panther 2) completely failed to reach production
he is right techincally speaking the Churchill wasnt a heavy tank but classed as a infantry tank, as it is meant to be slow and work with infantry (what can i say we are very specail over here on our island), as a pose to the cavalry/cruiser tank which was meant to act like cavalry doing scouting missions. we also came up with a third tank class called the Universal tank which everyone else later called the main battle tank
You're really not that special. The Infantry × Cruiser combo was a also copied by the Soviets, which also came to the conclusion that a Universal Tank would have been better (Talking about the T-44)
2 things 1. the UK was pretty much the last major country to develop their own universal tanks, everyone else had them mid or even early war while the UK didn't get theirs till post ww2. 2. UK did pioneer the infantry/cruiser tank setup, but they weren't the only ones doing it, especially early ww2.
The question if Churchill is a heavy tank is just playing with words and doctrines. Infantry tanks were designed to support infantry and create breakthroughs in enemy lines with their heavy armour that could be utilised by the faster and lighter cruiser tanks. Germans had a program for a tank with similiar purpose called Druchbruchwagen(breakthrough tank). That program resulted in a tank(you may have heard of it) called Pz. VI Tiger. British Charioteer is a similiar case: While it's design was based purely around mounting a bigger gun on a Cromwell(meaning it should be a tank destroyer), acording to doctrine it was a medium tank, because it had coaxial machine-gun, which tank detroyer don't have.
As mentioned in a video by the Chieftain, the M4 Sherman was thoroughly tested to workout the kinks by actually driving it on many conditions back in the USA. Hence, it was refined before being mass produced. Unlike the German ones.
Although every first series production tanks were unreliable is every country German tanks were notorious for reliability issues not cuz they were the only ones breaking down but they were crazy hard to fix on the field
I’m pretty sure that Shermans would probably break down on that long of a journey, but they could be very easily maintained. They were probably the most effective tank of the war
That's basically why everyone loved the Sherman. The US built it with the fact that actually getting new parts from across the ocean would take time, so the Sherman was made to be capable of getting a quick repair on the go. Just find a broken Sherman and repair your Sherman
yeah that claim with the sherman is completely inaccurate, major malfunctions would be very likely, even if it did travel that far it likely would have had to stop for minor repairs plenty of times
The Sherman was a pretty good machine, it was reliable, we could make them in numbers, and it was field repairable overall which counts for a lot. The Russians go a bunch of them thru lend-lease and the Russian crews like them. The Brits up the gun and made the FireFly to take care of well the German heavies in the west, there were never many of those in any one place to make any difference to the outcome of the War. Post-war a lot of nations operated Shermans, Israel took all the ones they could get and reworked them, and well those reworked Shermans made short work of Egyptian T-55s in 19 67! The biggest plus in my opinion, was the ease of transport. You could ship them anywhere with the existing infrastructure and bridges were not a major problem due to weight.
@@scottanos9981 They used both during the 6-Day war, as well as Pattons and AMX-13s. Honestly the IDF was basically a NATO soup for most of its history, if you were selling they were buying.
The tiger wasn’t produced as a response to the soviets, that was the Panther. The origins of the tiger program were found before the war, as a more heavily armoured assault tank.
In clocks they use IIII instead of IV because it would be easier for uneducated people to tell between IV and VI and also romans started using this on sunclocks because an IV turned downwards could be an offense to Jupiter (IVpiter). You can see it in many clocks, such as the grand train station in NYC has an IIII instead of IV.
The convention of using IIII instead of IV is a long held tradition in clock making. Using the quadruple i is the convention. The reason, I think, is because otherwise it would be easy to mix up IV and VI. Another factor to consider is that for most of history, writing IIII, VIIII, XXXX, etc. was not only perfectly acceptable, but also more common than using the "subtractive" method.
You showed a T-10/IS-4 for the "IS" series of tanks, which were drastic redesigns and improvements and heavier than the original IS's which you used as the stats, and were never fielded in ww2.
@@chunkspunk Thats just what it looks like in the photo, I wasnt sure which one it was exactly, but its still the wrong image to be using when talking about the early versions of the IS's that actually fought in the war.
While the Churchill often had a somewhat limited yet still reasonably effective 6pdr gun, though 75mm and specialist versions existed, the thing about the Churchill is that the British classified tanks as Infantry Tanks (slow but armored) and Cruising Tanks (fast but light). The Churchill was an Infantry Tank with up to and beyond a 100mm of frontal armour and weighing in at about 40 tons. Being a very well armoured Infantry Tank, while not specifically a Heavy Tank, it is as close to being a Heavy Tank as the British got in the Second World War. For all intents and purposes it is Britain's Heavy Tank despite mostly having 6pdr guns. Denying this by standing, and as you said, dying, on that hill doesn't help anyone.
Tank nerd here. Love your video and I agree with almost all of it. My only problem is with calling the T-34 the second best. On paper sure, but it suffered from massive reliability issues arguably worse than the Tiger and was almost never built without cutting massive corners. They would often be missing headlights, radios, rotating seats for the gunner, so he would have to stand up and turn himself around manually. The armor was often not made as well as it should have been. This meant that tons of T-34s were lost to Panzer IIIs who theoretically couldn't get through the armor. That isn't the half of it. If it could be cheaped out on, it was. This leaves us with the difficult question of what the second best tank was. I assume we can't use Sherman modifications like the 76, Jumbo, and Firefly. Maybe the Panzer IV, Pershing, or Crusader (As long as you keep it away from sand.)
Maybe something british? The Cromwell? Honestly the Shermans seem to be the only line of tanks from WW2 that didn't have some glaring issue (which is not to say they didn't have issues at all, just not to the same extent).
I wouldn't even rank the Sherman that high Good for an empire with borderline infinite industry and resources and the presumption of constant and endless air support and dominance For the cost of a late war Sherman you could afford a Panther, even 1.5 Panzer 4s The main glaring flaw being it's profile, war crime rounds (god bless history totally glossing over the war crime that was and is White Phosphorous smoke grenades) might be a positive if you belong in the hague, but the evil empire reserves the right to invade any nation to rescue it's criminals Otherwise a solid tank, especially for the war crime rounds. They did wonders on enemy tanks too, almost more effective then the 76mm variants
@@commisaryarreck3974 and here we go with one of these guys...dude where to even begin. First of all, especially from a mechanical perspective, the Sherman was far superior to the Panther. Unlike the panther it had a reliable propulsion system that didn't shred itself. Its frontal armor, despite it very much being a medium tank, was effectively only slightly thinner then that of a Tiger, a heavy tank. Its gun was pretty good when you compare it to most mediums. Its survivability was equal if not in some later variants superior to that of a Panzer IV, later variants had superior firepower, more practical optics (because a lense being able to zoom in further doesn't make it better) , had better ergonomics, and was far more reliable. The PZIV was very much an inferior design. When your referring to "war crime rounds" I assume youre talking about phosphorus, which is dumb on so many different levels. Those shells primarily exist to make smoke. In most situations an HE shell would be better for use against infantry. Then there's the whole air support nonsense. Yes, its true the allies generally had air superiority and better artillery but that does not account for successes in every battle. It has also been proven that the majority of claim air kills against tanks were false. Simply the result of a pilot flying at 200 plus mph not getting a proper look at the target. I could go on and on but honestly Im sick and tired of replying to people with this same outdated unsubstantiated view on ww2 equipment.
I think the tackiest tank is also about looks, as well as a combination of all characteristics of a tank (speed, armour, and firepower). I believe that the Chaffee is a contender because it looks like a classic tank, despite it not having the firepower or armour. The other contenders I believe are M4 Sherman, T-34-85, Pz. IV, Cromwell and Centurion. The centurion pushes it as a ‘world war two’ tank but it technically was produced and shipped to fight before the war ended. The centurion is considered a very prominent tank design.
Agreed on tankiest tank and also champion tank. Love a great accurate chunk of information, makes me feel like download more chunks and playing World of Tanks. Not even an advert, legit, well done the WoT crew got their monies worth.
The 88mm was used as yearly as 1942 in the Tiger I, and 1918 and AA guns. The Flak 18, and later Flak 36, the latter being modified into the Kwk 36, the one used in the Tiger. And they only made one Mause, then second was never completed.
This doesn’t even mention the T28. It was actually built for production while the german tanks were built as a fantasy. It was built for germanys defensive line and the Japanese mainland invasion.
@@vardekpetrovic9716 the T28 started life as the T28 heavy tank, got renamed for a few years to T95 GMC, then was renamed to T28 super heavy tank, I would definitely call it a tank
Great video as always. Very minor mistake but I thought I should point out at 1:15 you list the 50mm shell as having the same projectile weight as the 37mm one. Good day!
@@jansatamme6521 Weight isn't always the defining factor of a heavy tank. The Churchill had impressive armor that could hold up against German anti-tank guns, at the cost of speed. Idk about you, but that sounds like a heavy tank to me. As well, iirc, German tanks were labeled based on their gun caliber rather than their actual weight, hence why the Panther is a medium tank despite being better armored than the Tiger 1 (although I am not 100 sure on that being actually true).
@@zachantes1161 Panther was labled as a medium because it was designed as a medium but hitler ordered it to be up armored, also the churchill was intentionally slow, it was an infantry tank
he's saying the Churchill isn't a heavy tank because it technically isn't the UK never used the classic medium and heavy tank designations, they opted for Infantry (Churchill, Matilda, Vickers 6 ton) and Cruiser (Crusader, Cromwell, Cruiser Tank Mk 1-4) instead the Infantry and Cruiser tank designations have nothing to do with weight, armour, or firepower, just how they're used Churchill is commonly considered a heavy tank, while the Matilda is commonly considered a medium, and the Vickers is considered a light tank
Light tanks were not completely replaced they were just used in different roles. In the pacific theater they did not have as much tank warfare and it was often with lighter tanks
There are quite a few inaccuracies and even blatant myths propagated in this video (eg "The Tiger tank was developed as a counter for the T-34" - that's simply not true.). To be fair, however, this channel's target audience probably isn't hobby-tank-experts and "hobby-historians" - but rather entry-level interested folks. And for that this was a pretty good first introduction into the topic.
I don't really want to be that guys *but...* Some of the statistics provided do not match their illustrations... At 0:48 the illustration for the M2 light tank is an M2A2 while the statistics are that of the (I assume) M2A4, the difference is that the M2A2 have 2 turrets and that it only used a 12.7mm M2 browning instead of the 37mm gun. Another one is the Russian T-34 at 1:39, the illustration shows a T-34-85 (as in 85mm gun) while the statistics are more likely for the T-34 (1940) or 41 variant. Aaand the illustration for the "IS tank" is actually a T-10m (instead of an IS-3) which was only called the IS-10 in production but was later renamed in 1953 (production started in 1952, way after ww2 -.-) At 5:06 the M6 heavy tank's statistics are indeed that of the M6A1 but the illustration is actually an M6A2E1 which is a modified variant of the T1E1 (earlier version of the M6) with more armor and a 105mm gun from the T29 heavy tank, only 2 was built of this version as it was cancelled in 1944. No comment about the Churchill VII, I am not brave enough to take on our British lad :v
Overall nice video. There were a couple mistakes at the tank armor numbers and showing a T-34 destroy a panther then saying that tiger was made to counter that when really it should've been a panzer 4 (or 3)that the T-34 destroyed.
tiger wasn't built as a response to anything, it was intended as a breakthrough vehicle to get through tough places like the Maginot line. the development of the Tiger 1 predates ww2 entirely, the engineers didn't have any reason to respond to the Char B1 or Matilda II (which didn't even exist yet)
Also the answers are Kliment Voroshilov (kv), Churchill, tiger, IS and of course the Panzer VIII Maus (although only 2 were made) and one vehicle that wasn’t made but there were blueprints: the P1000 Ratte over 40 metres tall. It even had its own sewage system. It’s a land battleship.
Glad I am not the only person who feels the Sherman tanks do not get as much respect as they deserve. True they did not have the armor or the firepower of many other tanks of the war but: 1. It was far easier to mass produce than most if not all other models of the era; 2. They were reliable; 3. Because of the mass production, they were relatively easy to service and parts were readily available; and 4. My understanding was the design made them relatively easy to design and produce variants capable of carrying out special tasks. Need to clear a minefield? There is a Sherman for that. Got an amphibious situation? There is a Sherman for that. Need a bulldozer to clear obstructions for your army? There is a Sherman for that. Need to burn your way across vast quantities of territory? Well the best Sherman for that was in service in the 1860s but even the in the 1940s, there was a Sherman for that too.
A genocidal war criminal was in the 1860s Do want to correct it on that, my man was ECSTATIC about slaughtering civilians, as was his wife My man was bad enough that blacks in the south preferred the CSA...he did do a mighty fine job of slaughtering those too, or using them as slave labor before leaving them for dead Would've fit perfectly next to Himmler and Hitler
I've said this multiple times in the comments now, but the M4 definitely gets the respect it deserves now, it gets so much praise that it's gotten to the point where it's kinda overrated actually
Apparently everyone seem to forget to look at the French tank at the beginning of the war. Un odieu connard made a video about the battle of Stone. You should look at it.
A big thank you to our dear friends over at Wargaming for supporting us!
Play World of Tanks using this promo code to claim lots of juicy rewards: tanks.ly/3WfhTwz
Promo rewards include:
- Cromwell B (tier 6) British premium medium tank
- 250k credits
- 7 days premium access
- 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), T78 (Tier 6), Type 64 (Tier 6)
The promo code is only for players who register for the first time on the Wargaming portal.
LOL!
A big thank you to MY dear friends over at SponsorBlock for automatically skipping your sponsored segment!
You missed the opportunity to write tank you!
What negative trait put the Firefly below the Sherman, besides the sideways gun and hole in the back for the radio?
Why does it pain you to say the sherman was the best overall?
04:42 it wasn't Stalins decision to call the IS tanks after him, the engineer for the IS-1(before it was called that ofc) was quite paranoid (understandably) so he made the decision to make sure he'd be in Stalins favor.
Are you referring to the to the proto-type of the IS-1, KV-85?
@@canadianoctopus1479 probably he was referring to the IS-1, the KV-85 was a stopgap produced until IS tanks were fielded and ready to be used. To be quick, the IS-1 and the KV-85 are two different tanks.
@@canadianoctopus1479 KV-13. Engineer behind that one then turned it into IS-1 according to Peter Samsonov (aka Tank Archives)
You're not paranoid if the dictator really is out to get everyone
@@wolf_7479 Okay
Most of these heavier tanks were developed based on the assumption that their enemies were also developing heavier vehicles. This is why the Tiger showed up less than a year after the T-34 was first encountered - it wasn't a response to a specific Tank, it was already in development.
The factory of War thing is the only real edge the ccp has over the west. Westerns need start building shit again.
most heavy tanks were designed with this in mind, but the tiger was designed to breakthrough heavily fortified bunker lines like the maginot line.
No, T-34 was already in use in 1941, and Tiget came in 1943.
@petar658 Tiger 1 was first operational in september 1942. Production started in July 1942.
One minor correction: the Maus couldn't ford under its own power. It would need to he connected to another Maus via electrical lines so that the 2nd Maus would provide the necessary power to run the electric motors of the 1st Maus.
As one does
So, it wasn't even water proof? Hitler sure was just a child playing at war.
late war German engineering is a coke-fueled fever dream
🤓
@@AmericaIsACountry Woosh.
Mm yes, metal battle cans
This will be the top comment
That isn’t pinned
Ah yes, the angry bulldozer with a cannon.
(Edited big gun to cannon.)
with the funny pew pew that sometimes goes boom boom
Land submarines
Combat Coffins?
I completely disagree. The tankiest tank of them all is the almighty and undefeated Bob Semple Tank. There has never been a more menacing armored piece of weaponary ever in the battlefield.
Menacing for its crew, that is
Yup Japan never attacked New Zeland
I love only using that tank in hoi4!
I have a tin shed in my backyard, and have never once lost to a panzer. 0-0 is still a perfect record.
In true faction the Bob Semple tank didn't lose one single encounter in the second world war...
And that is a hard fact for yaaas right there
The Panzer IV is the unsung workhorse of the Wehrmacht. It was produced from beginning to end with many upgrades.
True but also not true, what about the Stug III ? It certainly is the best thing Germans could field (from a ratio standpoint)
@@parodyclip36stug III is tank destroyer or assalut gun
Not a tank
@@trijalupamungkas3808 "The Panzer IV is the unsung workhorse of the Wechmacht" and where exactly in this sentence did it exclude assault guns or TD's ?
@@trijalupamungkas3808 The Stug was the most successful german tank of the war by many metrics.
Important to note they were still very expensive to produce compared with similar allied medium tanks
Correction: At the start of the war, various nations/empires had medium, and medium to heavy, tanks in service. The British had the Matilda, which the Germans were uanble to knock out without the help of 88's, the Soviets had the KV tank and the French had the Char 2C (which did not see service).
Don't forget the Char B1.
depends how you define heavy tank, Matilda was an infantry tank instead of a medium or heavy
KVs were very few in numbers even in 1941 which is 3 years after the war started too
Pretty sure the matilda was able to tank a few shots from the 88
Sherman tank is so underrated. People think its plain and boring. But it was so good at what it was designed for. It was built to a high quality, yet produced in huge numbers. The Sherman was easily maintained, repaired, and upgraded into many different variants. It was just a good, all-around tank.
Not only is it THE best tank of WW2, it's also easily modified to serve any task, and survivable AF to boot
While the Sherman is underrated i feel like the T34 is still a bit overrated even through the T34 was probably one of the worst tanks ever made
@@Soldierus3003 well TBF the t 34 was a ridiculously cheap tank due to the it's unreliability as the Soviets cut corners on everything in it to save time and money and it still can server its purpose as a tank
I guess kv-1, tiger 1, was superior at the time of release, bringing a lot of headache to enemies. Is-3 is also great, looks very futuristic at the time.
@@oscarchoy9469 nope it was actually fairly expensive US estimates that if the T34 was built to US standards it would be about as expensive as the Sherman but the T34 wasn’t cheap it was 130,000 roubles
3:24 a little correction: the medium tanks mentioned should have been animated as Panzer 3 or 4 since Panther was only developed after the German ran into them. Also, the Panther is the German response to T-34, not Tiger. The Tiger development already started much earlier
its hilarious how many youtube channels cover tanks just to cozy up a sponsor with WoTs regardless of what their content normally is XD
One of the main reasons that the allies didn't invest in heavy monsters, is that they had to transport them. Across oceans in the case of the USA, advancing towards Berlin for all of them. The Germans fighting defensively, we're not wanting to shift them much, if at all.
Correct. It had to be light enough to go on most train flatcars, boats, cranes, and bridges(permanent and temporary). One of the issues the US had with the purshing tank (not counting reliability issues) was most of the infrastructure the entire way from factory to fight couldn't support it.
4:49 isn't that a T-10? That certainly isn't the IS or IS-2.
I think that's a T-10, but that tank (and many other soviet designs) were modeled after the IS-3. Also the T-10 was developed as the IS-8, but was renamed after Stalin's death. The tank shown can be found at the bottom of the IS Wikipedia page. (Yes I'm a nerd, and have too much free time.)
Wrong tank shown, but can be forgiven for technical reasons, and also because it's the most recognisable out of the IS series.
It really could be both it looks like an is3 and a t10 with the bulb
the t-34 shown is a t-34/85 a late war variant armed with a 85mm gun the models before it were armed with either a l-11 or f-34 76.2mm gun or a 57mm gun
tbf the 57 mm armed variants were incredibly rare, they only made 10 and none of them ever saw combat
@@file4130 from what i read on the wiki all ten were lost during fighting around moscow in late 1941, the concept was revisited in 1943, but was dropped in favor of developing the t-34/85
@@dennislemasters4339 they pulled one out of a swamp recently which is pretty cool
It’s weird so weird how under-appreciated the Sherman is. It’s not flashy, it didn’t have the best armor, and it’s gun was definitely underpowered, but it was a fast, very reliable, ergonomic armored war machine that could be produced int the gazillions. A Panther or Tiger might look formidable on paper, but it couldn’t contribute much when broken down by the side of the road.
sherman was underappreciated a long time ago but it's reputation was flipped within the past 20 years or so. I'd say the sherman is overappreciated now tbh
sherman sticks out too much if you dont have air superiority
all those reasons mentioned above! And I'd add to that the factor "Strategic mobility", which was especially important for the Americans, having to ship and rail them across the entire planet.
That's why every tank on tank comparison has the caveat that it's not really important which was "the" best tank, but which was the right tank for the circumstances of a particular military. The Sherman definetly was the right tank for the western allies (and even soviet tank crews appreciated it a lot on the eastern front).
1:40 "Medium" Tanks: Shows Chi-Ha with *25mm* of armour thickness 🤣
The Chi-Ha is a dedicated medium tank. It's classification was based more on it's weight than it's armor.
@@chunkspunk that's true. I just found it humourous how the Chi Ha is in the same category as the bigger tanks
Japan used them in their doctrine and classification as medium tanks. Such as a Panther would be a 'heavy' tank purely by classification by the US for example, but Germany used it as a medium tank.
@@rankovasek1987 it probably would have been a better tank if it hadnt been up armored at the command of hitler
@@jansatamme6521 hitler didn't have anything to do with the armour of the panther, the engineers decided to give it enough frontal armour to resist any weapons the allies were currently fielding.
also the uparmoured version of the panther (panther 2) completely failed to reach production
he is right techincally speaking the Churchill wasnt a heavy tank but classed as a infantry tank, as it is meant to be slow and work with infantry (what can i say we are very specail over here on our island), as a pose to the cavalry/cruiser tank which was meant to act like cavalry doing scouting missions. we also came up with a third tank class called the Universal tank which everyone else later called the main battle tank
You're really not that special. The Infantry × Cruiser combo was a also copied by the Soviets, which also came to the conclusion that a Universal Tank would have been better (Talking about the T-44)
2 things
1. the UK was pretty much the last major country to develop their own universal tanks, everyone else had them mid or even early war while the UK didn't get theirs till post ww2.
2. UK did pioneer the infantry/cruiser tank setup, but they weren't the only ones doing it, especially early ww2.
The question if Churchill is a heavy tank is just playing with words and doctrines.
Infantry tanks were designed to support infantry and create breakthroughs in enemy lines with their heavy armour that could be utilised by the faster and lighter cruiser tanks. Germans had a program for a tank with similiar purpose called Druchbruchwagen(breakthrough tank). That program resulted in a tank(you may have heard of it) called Pz. VI Tiger.
British Charioteer is a similiar case: While it's design was based purely around mounting a bigger gun on a Cromwell(meaning it should be a tank destroyer), acording to doctrine it was a medium tank, because it had coaxial machine-gun, which tank detroyer don't have.
4:48 That's a post-war T-10M.
Also knows as Isoif Stalin 8 (IS8) later renamed to t-10
@@diegocastro7434 T-10M isn't an IS-8 though
You can tell summer is in full swing. It seems like all the UA-camrs are dishing out full video ads this month
As a Brit who's got "Sherman" as my surname, I have a slight bias for the Sherman Firefly
As mentioned in a video by the Chieftain, the M4 Sherman was thoroughly tested to workout the kinks by actually driving it on many conditions back in the USA. Hence, it was refined before being mass produced. Unlike the German ones.
Although every first series production tanks were unreliable is every country
German tanks were notorious for reliability issues not cuz they were the only ones breaking down but they were crazy hard to fix on the field
the shermans had pretty big issues when they were first deployed in north africa, they were fixed later on though
original thumbnail for the video: hitler with a tiger tank
new video thumbnail: stalin with a t-34
Oh boy, my homie SideQuest is about to open up a can of worms.
Interesting thing is the Abrams is about the same size as the Tiger II was
I’m pretty sure that Shermans would probably break down on that long of a journey, but they could be very easily maintained. They were probably the most effective tank of the war
That's basically why everyone loved the Sherman. The US built it with the fact that actually getting new parts from across the ocean would take time, so the Sherman was made to be capable of getting a quick repair on the go. Just find a broken Sherman and repair your Sherman
yeah that claim with the sherman is completely inaccurate, major malfunctions would be very likely, even if it did travel that far it likely would have had to stop for minor repairs plenty of times
The Sherman was a pretty good machine, it was reliable, we could make them in numbers, and it was field repairable overall which counts for a lot. The Russians go a bunch of them thru lend-lease and the Russian crews like them. The Brits up the gun and made the FireFly to take care of well the German heavies in the west, there were never many of those in any one place to make any difference to the outcome of the War. Post-war a lot of nations operated Shermans, Israel took all the ones they could get and reworked them, and well those reworked Shermans made short work of Egyptian T-55s in 19 67! The biggest plus in my opinion, was the ease of transport. You could ship them anywhere with the existing infrastructure and bridges were not a major problem due to weight.
I always thought the Israelis used British Centurion tanks against the T55
@@scottanos9981 They used both during the 6-Day war, as well as Pattons and AMX-13s. Honestly the IDF was basically a NATO soup for most of its history, if you were selling they were buying.
it would of been nice to see you talk about the French char 2C and its weight of 69 tons finally being beaten by the German tiger 2 4 years later
Tanks for the video, SideQuest!
The tiger wasn’t produced as a response to the soviets, that was the Panther. The origins of the tiger program were found before the war, as a more heavily armoured assault tank.
I love how you sound so posh, yet cultured in meme and extra funny as well, the best combination for an educational youtube channel.
Who does the voice over? Incredible voice. Would be awesome to hear him reading literally anything for some asmr style videos…
Percy: He’s back!
Thomas: Ahem
Percy: Oh! I mean uh.. HE’S BACK!!!
1:46 Little side note: *_IV_* is the Roman numeral for 4, not _IIII_ as you see on some clocks including the one in the video...
In clocks they use IIII instead of IV because it would be easier for uneducated people to tell between IV and VI and also romans started using this on sunclocks because an IV turned downwards could be an offense to Jupiter (IVpiter). You can see it in many clocks, such as the grand train station in NYC has an IIII instead of IV.
The convention of using IIII instead of IV is a long held tradition in clock making. Using the quadruple i is the convention. The reason, I think, is because otherwise it would be easy to mix up IV and VI. Another factor to consider is that for most of history, writing IIII, VIIII, XXXX, etc. was not only perfectly acceptable, but also more common than using the "subtractive" method.
@@SirAnthonyChirpsALot I was basically talking about how the actual Romans did it back in the day and the subtractive method is a lot more efficient.
You showed a T-10/IS-4 for the "IS" series of tanks, which were drastic redesigns and improvements and heavier than the original IS's which you used as the stats, and were never fielded in ww2.
The T-10 was never the IS-4, it was it's own tank.
@@chunkspunkT-10 used to be named the IS-8 was changed after Stalin died
@@Panzer_Craze Im aware. But it wasn’t the IS-4.
@@chunkspunk yea wasnt, i meant to reply to him
@@chunkspunk Thats just what it looks like in the photo, I wasnt sure which one it was exactly, but its still the wrong image to be using when talking about the early versions of the IS's that actually fought in the war.
While the Churchill often had a somewhat limited yet still reasonably effective 6pdr gun, though 75mm and specialist versions existed, the thing about the Churchill is that the British classified tanks as Infantry Tanks (slow but armored) and Cruising Tanks (fast but light). The Churchill was an Infantry Tank with up to and beyond a 100mm of frontal armour and weighing in at about 40 tons. Being a very well armoured Infantry Tank, while not specifically a Heavy Tank, it is as close to being a Heavy Tank as the British got in the Second World War. For all intents and purposes it is Britain's Heavy Tank despite mostly having 6pdr guns. Denying this by standing, and as you said, dying, on that hill doesn't help anyone.
Only ogs remember the original thumbnail
Glad you're back. Love you guys at sidequest!
Tank nerd here. Love your video and I agree with almost all of it. My only problem is with calling the T-34 the second best. On paper sure, but it suffered from massive reliability issues arguably worse than the Tiger and was almost never built without cutting massive corners. They would often be missing headlights, radios, rotating seats for the gunner, so he would have to stand up and turn himself around manually. The armor was often not made as well as it should have been. This meant that tons of T-34s were lost to Panzer IIIs who theoretically couldn't get through the armor. That isn't the half of it. If it could be cheaped out on, it was. This leaves us with the difficult question of what the second best tank was. I assume we can't use Sherman modifications like the 76, Jumbo, and Firefly. Maybe the Panzer IV, Pershing, or Crusader (As long as you keep it away from sand.)
ahh yes the caveat with all Soviet creations
Maybe something british? The Cromwell? Honestly the Shermans seem to be the only line of tanks from WW2 that didn't have some glaring issue (which is not to say they didn't have issues at all, just not to the same extent).
@@whispofwords2590 Agreed.
I wouldn't even rank the Sherman that high
Good for an empire with borderline infinite industry and resources and the presumption of constant and endless air support and dominance
For the cost of a late war Sherman you could afford a Panther, even 1.5 Panzer 4s
The main glaring flaw being it's profile, war crime rounds (god bless history totally glossing over the war crime that was and is White Phosphorous smoke grenades) might be a positive if you belong in the hague, but the evil empire reserves the right to invade any nation to rescue it's criminals
Otherwise a solid tank, especially for the war crime rounds. They did wonders on enemy tanks too, almost more effective then the 76mm variants
@@commisaryarreck3974 and here we go with one of these guys...dude where to even begin. First of all, especially from a mechanical perspective, the Sherman was far superior to the Panther. Unlike the panther it had a reliable propulsion system that didn't shred itself. Its frontal armor, despite it very much being a medium tank, was effectively only slightly thinner then that of a Tiger, a heavy tank. Its gun was pretty good when you compare it to most mediums. Its survivability was equal if not in some later variants superior to that of a Panzer IV, later variants had superior firepower, more practical optics (because a lense being able to zoom in further doesn't make it better) , had better ergonomics, and was far more reliable. The PZIV was very much an inferior design.
When your referring to "war crime rounds" I assume youre talking about phosphorus, which is dumb on so many different levels. Those shells primarily exist to make smoke. In most situations an HE shell would be better for use against infantry.
Then there's the whole air support nonsense. Yes, its true the allies generally had air superiority and better artillery but that does not account for successes in every battle. It has also been proven that the majority of claim air kills against tanks were false. Simply the result of a pilot flying at 200 plus mph not getting a proper look at the target.
I could go on and on but honestly Im sick and tired of replying to people with this same outdated unsubstantiated view on ww2 equipment.
Tanks for the video ;]
Yes! Finally! A marvelous new video!
I fully expected him to say Cromwell at the end.
Such a charming animation style in these videos
Ah yes, the tactical tin cans
Copied other comment
I think the tackiest tank is also about looks, as well as a combination of all characteristics of a tank (speed, armour, and firepower). I believe that the Chaffee is a contender because it looks like a classic tank, despite it not having the firepower or armour. The other contenders I believe are M4 Sherman, T-34-85, Pz. IV, Cromwell and Centurion. The centurion pushes it as a ‘world war two’ tank but it technically was produced and shipped to fight before the war ended. The centurion is considered a very prominent tank design.
Agreed on tankiest tank and also champion tank. Love a great accurate chunk of information, makes me feel like download more chunks and playing World of Tanks.
Not even an advert, legit, well done the WoT crew got their monies worth.
0:49 the American tank in this image is the m2a2, a duel turreted machine gun tank while the stats describe an m2a4, the forerunner to the stuart
Truly marvelous of a video indeed!
The 88mm was used as yearly as 1942 in the Tiger I, and 1918 and AA guns. The Flak 18, and later Flak 36, the latter being modified into the Kwk 36, the one used in the Tiger.
And they only made one Mause, then second was never completed.
Bob Semple is the best tank in the world.
Ash!, i love you’re content. Even though im currently having an long brake from the snail suffering
I am sure Hitler was lacking in a part of his anatomy, that's why he always wanted to have the biggest tanks of them all.
This doesn’t even mention the T28. It was actually built for production while the german tanks were built as a fantasy.
It was built for germanys defensive line and the Japanese mainland invasion.
@@vardekpetrovic9716 dude like 500 T-28's were built
@@dudeski6548 Not the russian T-28, the american superheavy 100+ ton moving bunker.
@@gamercow.1418 oh the turtle or whatever nickname it had?
@@vardekpetrovic9716 the T28 started life as the T28 heavy tank, got renamed for a few years to T95 GMC, then was renamed to T28 super heavy tank, I would definitely call it a tank
@@dudeski6548 Yes
the tankiest tanks of ww2. Sounds like the kind of title the panzerkampfwagen internet experts are creaming at the sound of.
I always appreciate a good anchor man reference
Great video as always. Very minor mistake but I thought I should point out at 1:15 you list the 50mm shell as having the same projectile weight as the 37mm one. Good day!
The Bob Semple tank. No contest.
The L3
What about the tanks commanders like such as George Patton, Erwin Rommel, Michael Wittmann, Otto Carius, Kurt Knispel and Lafayette G. Pool.
'open youtube' => 'last video 31 sec' hmmm ok
Tanks for this great video 😉
Why would he not consider the churchill a heavy? Is this some controversy?
it doesnt weigh that much and the reason its slow is that its an infantry tank, meant to move at the pace of infantry
@@jansatamme6521 Weight isn't always the defining factor of a heavy tank. The Churchill had impressive armor that could hold up against German anti-tank guns, at the cost of speed. Idk about you, but that sounds like a heavy tank to me. As well, iirc, German tanks were labeled based on their gun caliber rather than their actual weight, hence why the Panther is a medium tank despite being better armored than the Tiger 1 (although I am not 100 sure on that being actually true).
@@zachantes1161 Panther was labled as a medium because it was designed as a medium but hitler ordered it to be up armored, also the churchill was intentionally slow, it was an infantry tank
he's saying the Churchill isn't a heavy tank because it technically isn't
the UK never used the classic medium and heavy tank designations, they opted for Infantry (Churchill, Matilda, Vickers 6 ton) and Cruiser (Crusader, Cromwell, Cruiser Tank Mk 1-4) instead
the Infantry and Cruiser tank designations have nothing to do with weight, armour, or firepower, just how they're used
Churchill is commonly considered a heavy tank, while the Matilda is commonly considered a medium, and the Vickers is considered a light tank
Wow haven't seen a world of tanks ad in a while
This was a really interesting video. Nice job.
knew this was an ad before watching it, and still i watched and i'd daresay enjoyed it anyways
Light tanks were not completely replaced they were just used in different roles. In the pacific theater they did not have as much tank warfare and it was often with lighter tanks
I can’t imagine a Maus tank ever crossing a river underwater cause it’s so damn heavy it might as well break the clay bedrock holding the river
There are quite a few inaccuracies and even blatant myths propagated in this video (eg "The Tiger tank was developed as a counter for the T-34" - that's simply not true.).
To be fair, however, this channel's target audience probably isn't hobby-tank-experts and "hobby-historians" - but rather entry-level interested folks. And for that this was a pretty good first introduction into the topic.
Kb ur,7,9 mm rifle : And I took that personaly
1:54 Anchorman reference!
1:43
Babe, new side quest just dropped
Ahh yes the Bob Semple Tank, Clearly the Tankiest of all!
Not a single one lost in battle.
@RubyDoobieScoo and the country that hade them was not invaded ones after they made it
Tank You Sidequest! Hope you get all the support you need for more videos
I don't really want to be that guys *but...*
Some of the statistics provided do not match their illustrations...
At 0:48 the illustration for the M2 light tank is an M2A2 while the statistics are that of the (I assume) M2A4, the difference is that the M2A2 have 2 turrets and that it only used a 12.7mm M2 browning instead of the 37mm gun.
Another one is the Russian T-34 at 1:39, the illustration shows a T-34-85 (as in 85mm gun) while the statistics are more likely for the T-34 (1940) or 41 variant. Aaand the illustration for the "IS tank" is actually a T-10m (instead of an IS-3) which was only called the IS-10 in production but was later renamed in 1953 (production started in 1952, way after ww2 -.-)
At 5:06 the M6 heavy tank's statistics are indeed that of the M6A1 but the illustration is actually an M6A2E1 which is a modified variant of the T1E1 (earlier version of the M6) with more armor and a 105mm gun from the T29 heavy tank, only 2 was built of this version as it was cancelled in 1944.
No comment about the Churchill VII, I am not brave enough to take on our British lad :v
6:20 *HAPPY LAZERPIG NOISES*
i like this British fella
Oi, me do fancy tis briish laddie
Him and Lindybeige
I agree with the church hill statement there’s no way a tank with a 57mm gun could ever be considered a heavy tank.
Toward the end of the war the Americans and British fielded peak level medium tanks the Pershing and Comet.
Let's not forget that Centurion was just around the corner.
It’s kinda wild that one of greatest tanks of all time missed the war it was meant for.
@@williamkarbala5718 what is more wild was we were also still developing the black prince at the same time with its wopping 10.5mph on the road
The boys are back!
4:01 hungary used AI peace treaties
So this was just a big add, thanks for that
If we went on sheer designs of the tank, and what it was capable of doing in multiple roles, its gonna be Hobarts Funnies.
Overall nice video. There were a couple mistakes at the tank armor numbers and showing a T-34 destroy a panther then saying that tiger was made to counter that when really it should've been a panzer 4 (or 3)that the T-34 destroyed.
The debate I had clicking on this was whether it was sponsored by War Thunder or World of Tanks.
*Of course the one that can carry the most water.*
Goes to show that bigger isn't always better
OMG HE IS BACK
always love your content
You can't convince me that the Bob Semple Tank isn't the tankiest tank of them all
You missed out on mentioning the doom turtle
I love how the song playing is not quite “Erika” but not quite not “Erika”
wrong, I am the tankiest tank
Quality video, as usual. Tank you.
*Slaps the hatch of a Sherman tank.
"We can run 50 of these bad boys out of a production line every single day."
Germany: thank God we made the Atlantic wall that will push you back into the water for SuRe
fell into that trap again . Tiger was built not in response to t-34 but the Panther was. The Tiger was in response to the Matilda II and Char
tiger wasn't built as a response to anything, it was intended as a breakthrough vehicle to get through tough places like the Maginot line. the development of the Tiger 1 predates ww2 entirely, the engineers didn't have any reason to respond to the Char B1 or Matilda II (which didn't even exist yet)
Many tanks for this video!
0:15 bro that is just a turret on wheels. Where is the sprocket, how does it move.
Also the answers are Kliment Voroshilov (kv), Churchill, tiger, IS and of course the Panzer VIII Maus (although only 2 were made) and one vehicle that wasn’t made but there were blueprints: the P1000 Ratte over 40 metres tall. It even had its own sewage system. It’s a land battleship.
Engine in the turret
Glad I am not the only person who feels the Sherman tanks do not get as much respect as they deserve. True they did not have the armor or the firepower of many other tanks of the war but:
1. It was far easier to mass produce than most if not all other models of the era;
2. They were reliable;
3. Because of the mass production, they were relatively easy to service and parts were readily available; and
4. My understanding was the design made them relatively easy to design and produce variants capable of carrying out special tasks. Need to clear a minefield? There is a Sherman for that. Got an amphibious situation? There is a Sherman for that. Need a bulldozer to clear obstructions for your army? There is a Sherman for that. Need to burn your way across vast quantities of territory? Well the best Sherman for that was in service in the 1860s but even the in the 1940s, there was a Sherman for that too.
A genocidal war criminal was in the 1860s
Do want to correct it on that, my man was ECSTATIC about slaughtering civilians, as was his wife
My man was bad enough that blacks in the south preferred the CSA...he did do a mighty fine job of slaughtering those too, or using them as slave labor before leaving them for dead
Would've fit perfectly next to Himmler and Hitler
I've said this multiple times in the comments now, but the M4 definitely gets the respect it deserves now, it gets so much praise that it's gotten to the point where it's kinda overrated actually
I agree shermans and T34s were best tanks in terms of actual use
Apparently everyone seem to forget to look at the French tank at the beginning of the war.
Un odieu connard made a video about the battle of Stone. You should look at it.
tanks-a-lot for the video
Excellent work and always so funny !
I wonder if our boy Lazerpig has seen this?