The 17 Pounder was awesome, the best allied tank gun of WW2, a complete gun and turret was sent to the US in early 1944 for mass production. General Lesley McNair, Commander-Army Ground Forces, rejected the 17 Pounder and also fought to cancel the M-26. They were contrary to his doctrine that heavy guns on tanks were not needed, as only Tank Destroyers were allowed to fight enemy tanks. This policy only changed when McNair was killed by friendly fire in Normandy 1944.
@billballbuster7186: I think you are correct about the 17 Pounder, but it was used mostly by the Brits and Canadians. I am not sure how many Fireflys the US had. In the movie "Fury" with Brad Pitt, the star of the M4 Firefly.
Also, there was a VERY high number of incidents of commanders on the ground using tank destroyers in the role of infantry support, using them as artillery, and only requesting high explosive rounds instead of armor piercing rounds for tank-on-tank encounters. That was one of the prime reasons that so many tank destroyers got knocked out in an engagement. It was kind of like having to use a knife in a gunfight, because the cartridges in your gun were all blanks.
@@ronaldlee3537The Tank Brad Pitt was in was not the Sherman Firefly. “Fury” was one of the 76MM versions of the M4. Called the M4A3E8 or also commonly referred to as the “Easy 8” The US did not use the Sherman Firefly.
@@ronaldlee3537 - In "Fury," Brad Pitt's - Sgt. Collier that is! - was not a Sherman Firefly w/ a 17-pounder gun. It was an M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman equipped with the 76mm M1 gun, which while an upgrade over the 75mm gun in terms of anti-tank performance, was not the equal of the British 17-pounder gun. The U.S. 76mm gun has a fairly long barrel and a dual-baffle muzzle brake, so it is somewhat easy to mistake it for the British gun, but if you look closer, the British 17-pounder has a rounded muzzle brake and is somewhat longer than the American gun. Apart from prototypes and things of that sort, the U.S. did not use or adopt the 17-pounder gun.
@@ronaldlee3537 The British supplied a 17 Pounder gun and turret so the US Army could adopt it. But McNair rejected it and so the only Sherman Firefly tanks were built by the British, 2,150 built 1944-45. However after McNair died the US Army placed orders for the Firefly and about 150 were supplied before the end of the war, but they were too late to see action.
Saying the Sherman’s 75mm gun was “underpowered” is relative. When the tank was designed and first used in 1940-1941 it was very comparable and superior to comparable tanks of the day like the t-34-76, panzer III, panzer IV, Cromwell. Only later in the war 1943-44 did it lag behind
Also keep in mind that by 45 many of the German's experience tankers had been killed and the Panzer Corp was just a shell of its former self. Its amazing how well they still fought though considering.
How well did the Sherman do in combat compared to the Pershing? We have only a few examples in World War II but the most famous example was the taking of the Ludendorff Bridge. The Pershing was slow to be brought into combat in large part, due to concerns how well it would handle river crossings. When the Pershing tanks reached the Rhine river near the Ludendorff Bridge, they gave effective cover fire, totally suppressing the fire of German infantry in a moored barge on the far bank, something a Sherman 75 mm could have done as well or better. The Pershing tanks could not cross over the bomb damaged Ludendorff Bridge, nor could they cross over the pontoon bridges that were hurriedly thrown across. The Sherman tanks could cross over both and continued on into Germany. Over the following days, the Pershing tanks were ferried over the Rhine, one at a time, by combat engineers, at about one or two per day. Something that is not really a problem, if you have an Engineering Company near by with nothing better to do and have no concerns about maintaining the tempo of an offensive. How were the Germans able to handle their heavier Panthers and Tiger tanks? Simple. They were on the defensive. They didn't need to cross pontoon bridges. They could use permanent bridges that could support a heavy tank. It is important to remember that during the German offenses of 1939-1942, they weren't using Panthers and Tigers. They were using the much lighter Panzer III and IV's, even lighter than the Sherman tanks. Panzer divisions with Panthers and Tigers would have failed to cross the Meuse River so quickly, if at all, at Sedan in May 1940. Perhaps would have slowed them up enough for even the French high command to react quickly enough to stop them.
@@williamromine5715 We had a Brit Major who had just come from the BAOR where he was on Chieftains to 2Cav RAAC where the largest thing we had was the M113AI FSV with a Scorpion Turret He was not impressed He did like how we had made our Fitters habitable Gas Bottle and two burner stove fixed to the Ramp by a cradle Two hammocks one each strung on the Left and right Extra wide full length tool box RHS The lid was a bed at night with extra thick Foam Cushion Enclosed sides for Shelves for our Bread Tinned Stuff My wifes' chilli sauce tinned butter Esky with ice for the first few days for our steaks . We lived well Always handy when you served 5 years in a base workshop and the people who were still there fours years later
.@@jacktattis Total Armored Force kia December 1941 to December 1946, 1605, with 50% of those occurring outside the tank. Source Official US Army casualties list. I do not have the link on this pc but if you PM me I can send it to you once I get home. There is one caveat to those figures they do not include officers as there was no official armored branch during the War. Those totals are for all tank types. Rough average if an M4 was penetrated 4 of the 5 crew would survive. The Churchill may have a slightly higher crew survival rate.
The 76mm M1 was a good, very accurate gun - let down by poor quality ammo, both AP and HE. Only the very rare, late war APCR round was up to the task. The reasons were multiple: 1) The tests were flawed. The test rounds did not have HE filler, and in addition the test armor was softer than German armor. 2) In combat the HE filler would often detonate at impact, causing the rounds to shatter. 3) Even if the bursting charge worked, the rounds itself were too soft and would often shatter anyway. 4) The 76mm M1 and 90mm M3 weren't tested in numbers in combat until late in the war, and when the problems became clear it was little time left of the war to fix the problems. As a result, both the 76mm M1 and 90mm M3 underperformed, although the latter was still useful.
Point #3 is self-contradictary. Soft does not shatter, if it did you know it's been hardened too much. For metals, hard = brittle. That's why finding the right balance is difficult.
An interesting video. I think it overplays the conclusion that the Americans failed to prioritize the Pershing in the later phases of the war. The failure to include US tanks with the 76mm gun on D Day and to rush HVAP were mistakes. What this episode fails to do is to recognize that the American use of armour was part of a doctrine of combined arms that was executed better by the US Army than by anyone else in the war. The combined use of air, armour, artillery and infantry was of greater importance than the individual penetration statistics of a particular anti tank gun. Of course if you were in that lone Sherman that encountered a Panther head on those stats didn’t matter much.
76mm tanks were available close to 300 I believe. The 75mm gun had been getting the job done up to that point as the Americans had encountered very few Panthers in Italy. The units did not want to adopt a new tank with different ammo and maintenance requirements right before the invasion. Same issue with the HVAP. the 75mm and 3inch M7 gun had been working fine. as their primary opponents had been Panzer III and IVs along with Stugs. It was not until encountering Panthers in numbers that they realized they needed better Anti-tank capability. Also, Ordnance had mounted a 76mm gun on the M4 in 19423 but the Ground forces rejected it for the same reasons they rejected the Firefly conversion, bad ergonomics. Even after the advent of the 76mm M4 in numbers some tank units refused to accept them as their encounters with German armor were so rare, they preferred the superior HE performance of the 75mm gun. The Americans thought the Panther was another heavy German tank along the lines of the Tiger I. The British came to the conclusion that the Panther was going to be deployed in numbers.
At 2:35 it is said the Sherman's armor couldn't protect the crews. The German guns could penetrate just about anything short of the IS-2, so that wasn't an issue. The Sherman Jumbo had more armor than the King Tiger.
You are talking about a middle weight going up against a heavy weight tank, the tank that had to bait both the Panther and Tiger was considered suicide and nobody wanted that job
Check out the tank museum in Bovington. They have Tiger and 17 pdr guns. The 17 pdr could penetrate more armour than the Tiger '88. The only problem was their accuracy.
The 17 Pounder standard APCBC ammo could penetrate Tiger 1 and Panther at battle ranges and was very accurate up to 1,500 meters. However some of the more powerful APDS ammo did have issues when first supplied. But it could still hit the front plate of a Tiger II at 500 meters. Improved ammo with greater accuracy appeared in 1945.
You forgot something ; the armor of Panther and Tiger vs Sherman ,dude. The 88mm from Tiger could destroy a Sherman from long distance without problem ,from the first hit. Tiger with his 88mm was unique ! Ask vet's ,read what the vet's said.
@@kniespel6243 Tiger and Panther were not very good at hitting moving tanks, even at 1,000 meters they had trouble. Long range accuracy was useless in NW Europe because of the terrain. Old Vets would say they were hit by a Tiger in the same way every German pilot said he was shot down by a Spitfire.
@@billballbuster7186Well, Not exactly the case. Panther's 75mm KwK-42 was one of the best guns, absolutely flat trajectory and high accuracy with good penetration. This gun was better than the 88mm KwK-36 of Tiger-I. And talking about the legendary gun of WW-2, it is has no doubt KwK-43, 88mm used in Tiger-II, Jagdpanther, Ferdinand and Nashorn
@@livingroomtheatre174 In tests the 17 Pounder was considered superior in penetration to the US 90mm the 8.8cm KwK.36 and 7.5cm KwK.42. The 8.8cm KwK.43 was bettered by the 32 Pounder on the A39 Tortoise. Its armour penetration was not surpassed until the L7 105mm firing APFSDS on the 1980s
the problem with the M-26 was its weight. the cranes at most ports could only lift ~30 Tons, this happened to be the weight of the sherman. if you can't ship or unload a tank, why build it?
Even the upgraded high velocity 76mm gun on the newer M4A3E8 Shermans had trouble against German Tigers and Panthers during the war but it really didn't matter because by 1944 those tanks were rare to see on the battlefields in European theater. It wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge when the King Tiger came out that the Americans experienced massive losses. Actually the biggest killer of Allied armored vehicles was the Germans Stug 3 tank destroyer and Panzershrech rocket launchers.
@@brucenorman8904 Yes it was formidable but it could be disabled from the side/ the rear. Even the 75mm could disable them . Knock a wheel station or two off and the tracks fall off Come back at your leisure and blow it to hell After all its thinnest was only 40mm; By late 44 the Allies had a few tricks of their own
Logistics... logistics... logistics... the Pershing was too heavy to use our pontoon bridges, and other equipment. Plus, it could be knocked out by Tigers from the front, and anything from the side. The 17# was the way to go, but required a 4-man crew and carried larger - but fewer - shells. Pick your poison.
In the lead up to D-Day the Armor divison commanders could decided to include some 76mm armed M4 Sherman. At the cost of additional training and especially the problem of an increased logistics burden. Panthers and Tigers were still new to the US Army. In retrospect that decision can be questioned. Remember that tanks were part of American doctrinal way of war. Even had they knowledge of panther and tigers the decision may have been the same one made
I am sure this was well intended ,but there are quite valid reasons that they hel dc off on withholding 76mm shermans during the first stages of Normandy. Check out the Chieftain vids .
Good video! If you want even more on the subject of Shermans overall. I'll refer everyone to The Chieftain's excellent video on US tank doctrine where he exhaustively covers the Sherman and how serviceable and flexible it was. The 17 lbs was a fantastic anti tank gun and the British found a way to stuff it in a standard Sherman turret and it wasn't ergonomic to use. It was a good compromise. The US didn't think it was practical. The 75 had a better HE round and the British fixed this by putting one Firefly in each platoon of 75mm armed Shermans. Sometimes i think we should of incorporated more of the hard won lessons the British learned earlier on.
@@jacktattisHi Jack, my understanding is it, the 75 mm, had a larger amount of explosives because less of the round was made of hardened metal . The 76 mm was designed as a anti armor round so thicker shell wall.
@@jacktattisHi again Jack. Well that's what I've read as far as the 75mm vs. The American 76 mm. As for the British 17 pounder goes I don't know. It was a big round but I haven't heard much about the 17 pounder's HE. I have even asked of these forums if it actually had a HE round no response. I 've got alot of literature on AFV's but I can't find a reference. You would think it had to of had one but alot of the early British guns didn't, such as the 2 Lbs and 6 lbs. That's one of the reasons the American 75 on the Lee/ Grant's and later the Sherman was so well received by the British in North Africa. Gave them a?good HE round to use on infantry and anti- tank guns.
In 1942 when the first Shermans were heading to the British 8th army , the 76 mm was considered for the M4 and tests were down by the bureau of ordinance. They considered the original Sherman turret to be a little bit cramped with the 76 mm. Even though it was a success. So the Allies could have had a 76 mm Sherman in 1943, but it was rejected. After the war many shermans were converted to 76 mm with original turret, these tanks were transferred to allied Nations after the war.
@@nighthawk8053 The 17 pounder was accurate, read my last post, it wasn't fabricated, neither is there any reason to be biased. The intermittent accuracy at long ranges was affected only when using the then new APDS ammo. You need to check your information if you mean the M1A2, there's enough detail on Wiki unless you go to a website dedicated to guns of this type. The closest match to the 17-pounder was the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 (L/70) I've done the research on this myself, you do the same.
@@Slaktrax M1A2 was more accurate,but 17 pdr had better penetration at normal combat ranges under 1000 m . 76 had a decent HE round too but not as good as the M3 75mm.
There were no 90mm armed M26 Pershing tanks in June of 1944. Production wasn’t even available. It was still in development. By the Fall of 1944. Before the BoB, the 90mm armed M36 Jackson was in NW Europe. The Army wasn’t keeping 90mm armed vehicle out of Europe! Nor did General Patton hinder the M26 getting too Europe. That was all decided stateside and being requested by General Eisenhower
No allied tank ever penetrated the King Tiger’s frontal armour in WW2. The 17 pounder was an awesome gun, although not as accurate as any of the 88’s, a huge difference when it came to tank on tank battles as the optics on German tanks and the fact that first to shoot usually won a tank battle. As brave as the US tank men were they were let down by the top brass with the Sherman, disgraceful that the Pershing wasn’t manufactured in big numbers earlier. Criminal actually
The 75mm gun did not "sacrifice firepower for maneuverability." The 75mm gun was a multi use gun, armor piercing, HE, etc. It was a great weapon for all around use. The 75mm L/40 (M3/M6) HVAP T45 Round could take out a Tiger I at 1000 to 2000 yards from the side. The Tiger I had 60 mm (2.4 in) thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour on the side superstructure/sponsons, while turret sides and rear were 80 mm.
Keep in mind that 'medium' Shermans were fighting 'heavy' Tigers. That said, Americans weren't stupid. They avoided head-on tank vs tank fights. That was mostly in the movies.
The 17 Pounder was very effective against tanks, as an anti-tank gun. Stuffed sideways into a Sherman tank, not totally effective. Fundamental problem, very hard to aim. Many Sherman Fireflies battles involved the Firefly firing, and missing a German tank. The gun was hard to aim while mounted sideways. But not impossible. In August 1944, a Sherman Firefly knocked out 3 Tigers in quick succession, including Panzer Ace Michael Wittman's tank, killing him. They also knocked out a fourth tank, before having their own tank knocked out, with the entire crew escaping. Clearly, this was a very good crew who worked well together. Particularly the gunner, who unlike most gunners, was a master at aiming the sideways mounted 17-pounder in the confined space of the Sherman's turret. What did the British officers do? They split up the crew, of course. Sent individual members as replacement member on various tanks. The key man, the gunner, was at least assigned to another Firefly tank. But as a radio operator! How dumb can you get? I imagine a lot of his radio messages (or that of his tank's commander's) to the platoon commander was "We have fired on the Panther but missed. We are trying again." This was insane. They should have put the entire crew into a different tank, which has to be a Firefly Sherman. With everyone in the previous role. Kick out the crew of an underperforming tank if you have to. They can be split up as replacement crew members. But get those five operating as a team again as soon as possible. But the British liked to bumble through. If you sideline the victorious commander of Fighter Command in 1940 to make way for more politically adept subordinates, I guess I see no reason not to split up a winning tank crew.
Very hard to aim 2 x Panzers in quick succession at 1645m would put a lie to that and Ekins 3 in 5 shots at 800m was another one and then there was Sgt Harris of the 4/7 Dragoons that got 5 in 5 shots from 800m for two panthers the other 3 are not recorded at what distance he engaged them
you better check your facts bud , 76mm tank destroyers against Panthers , Battle of Arra court the 76mm did penn the panthers. and the Hellcat was not the first TD with a 76mm gun , the m10 was. and at Aberdeen Proving Grounds the 76mm was tested against the 17pdr penn was only slightly less with better accuracy.
Yes they did but that does not detract from the statement that they were a flawed design Good Bunker busting gun but too high, at least 2 ft higher than all the tanks in the west and in the Bocage country the Germans were able to easily set ambushes
Here is what I simply do NOT understand. Why didn’t they cut the shell casing of the 76.2mm round to about let’s say 1/3 of it’s length and fill it with propellant leaving enough room for a shell. Then take an empty 76.2 mm shell and stretch the shell till shell and shell casing combined are as long as the armor piercing round. Fill the stretched shell with, let’s say, 2 pounds of high explosive material; place it in the cut down, propellant filled shell casing and ‘Voila! You now have an excellent 76.2mm General Purpose, High Explosive Round. Of course you would have had to play with the amount of propellant to get the velocity and shell length right, but this doable. EDIT: Am I the only one to think of this?
One problem was logistical. The Shermans had to be hauled across an ocean. I've read that captured German tankers said "It's easy to kill American tanks. But when we kill one, five take its place."
@@grahamlowe314 David Miller Tanks of the World page 348 and 349 It states some North African Churchills were reworked in Egypt Now 1. North Africa not Tunisia two different theatres of Operation and 2. They may have been worked at the Base Workshops by REME
It shouldn't have been like that. But when Paton discovered what he British had done he stop the American units from getting the Because he thought he knew best and didn't like that the British had put the bigger gun on them. IT WAS IN ANOTHER DOCUMENTARY I SAW. IT WAS THE SAME ONE I HEARD WHAT THE brits had proved the Sherman tank
Most tank losses were not from tank on tank but from anti-tank guns and panzerfaust . There was only 6000 Panthers and around 1349 Tiger 1 under 500Tiger 2's Over 50000 Sherman were made. The side armor of Panther was only 40mm to 50mm that be penetrated by the 75mm of the Sherman . Encounters with the (Boogie man) the Panther and Tiger were very rare. Any Sherman was a better tank then any German tank .
The Sherman was no better than ANY German tank the PZIV with the 75mm L48 gun was more than equal to the early Sherman it was only the late Sherman that had 100mm Armour and at below 1800m the L48 could penetrate the Sherman The Sherman 75 could NOT do the same to the PZIV
Not all Sherman's were intended to engage in armor vs armor combat. Originally there were 76 mm. guns capable of killing most German armor. The 76mm tanks plus the tank destroyer sections held in reserve until needed.
The problem with having those big guns in the rear made no sense what so ever, did they wait until all the Sherman tanks were knocked out then bring them up, how many lives were lost
We should remember when looking at US tank losses during the European campaign that the US was almost continually on the offense. Often times the Germans were able to dig in or find advantageous fighting positions and wait for the Americans to advance. This created numerous opportunities to destroy tanks in great numbers. Also, many of the American tanks destroyed during the European campaign were almost certainly destroyed by towed anti-tank guns. it’s doubtful that the Americans would always know whether a tank was destroyed by another tank or by an anti-tank gun.
The Americans for some reason, didn't want any of the Funny Tanks developed for Normandy. The only Tank taken by them, weren't understood by the US high command, which sent the Tanks from 3 miles away, which due to this and sea state so far out, they all sank. The British on the other used all of them to great effect? These were, Flail tanks, Mortar tanks, Bridging & track layers + off course Firefly 17 pounder equipped. This is why the Americans took heavy losses, still can't see why their lack of lateral thinking,,unless they have a fixed number of casualties in mind and didn't care. They really let their tank crews down, especially the Firefly.
It's was not the engine it was the storage of the ammo . That's y they went to wet storage racks . The ammo storage boxes were surrounded with antifreeze
Figures "Old Blood 'N' Guts" Patton would choose the high production with the Shermans over crew survivability and better offensive power of the Pershing. He's definitely "The ends justify the means" type of guy not putting the safety of his soldiers first.
@ John14-6 - Re: "Figures "Old Blood 'N' Guts" Patton would choose the high production with the Shermans over crew survivability and better offensive power of the Pershing." Patton cited U.S. Army doctrine to a tee when rendering his decision against hurrying the M-26 to the ETO in time for D-Day, namely that the tank destroyer command was responsible for fighting enemy armor, and that the tanks were supposed to create and exploit breakthroughs with the infantry. He also cited that with berthing space critical aboard trans-Atlantic shipping, that two M4s would be shipped in the space/weight allotment for one M-26. Having said that, his decision was arguably the wrong one. Although as a cavalryman, Patton was a master of mobile, fasting-moving mechanized warfare, his understanding of tanks themselves was not all that great. He simply didn't have the background in mechanical engineering, metallurgy, ballistics, or other arcane subjects, to make the kind of technical decisions he was sometimes called upon to make. This is no knock on Patton, who is deservedly a legend.... it is simply to note that like many of the senior officers of that time, Patton didn't have the technical background necessary to understand how tanks were designed and how they functioned in the field. How could they? These are men who were born in the late 1800s, and who came up as cavalrymen. Tanks were brand-new weapons in the Great War, by which time these men were - some of them anyway - junior or even field-grade officers. So, Patton probably relied on his staff and technical experts of various kinds, as well as reports he was getting up the chain of command. If they didn't supply him and the other generals with accurate information, or if having gotten it, the brass ignored it, one can see how incorrect and/or poor decisions could be made. Ike claimed to have been blindsided by the mediocre performance of the 76mm gun at Normandy, and said he'd been told it was a "wonder weapon" on par with the German 88. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of SHAEF, wasn't even getting accurate, timely information.... wow! All armies are rank-conscious, right? For the lower-ranking personnel, sometimes, it isnt easy to contradict or go against the views of someone much more senior to you. And some brass are better at listening to subordinates than others.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961Why was it the wrong decision ? AGF was the safest army branch in Europe, infantry had 4x the casualty rate. Company level attacks already suffered around 20% casualties with about half wounded when attacking defended positions held by similar forces. 1 supporting tank cut that down to about 3-4% dead and 5% wounded. 2 Tanks and you generally had about even odds of a dead man and upto 5 wounded. WW2 was handily won by the allies. Problem ? Nah.
@@dwwolf4636 - Re: "Why was it the wrong decision ?" Just my opinion. You don't have to like it. It's called a reading of the evidence,and it is what historians do. My interpretation differs from yours, which is fine. Happens all the time. Deal with it. Or not. Either way, I don't have the time to debate strangers on the internet regarding the fine points of WW2 history.
The standard operating procedure was for Allied infantry and tanks to call in Allied artillery especially the 155 mm Artillery to fire on German Armor as everyone knew Allied tanks could not stand up to the better German Tiger and Panther tanks. However, you could kill the German Panther by hitting its weaker Sides and Rears.
Despite the 17 lbs being the best answer, it was British and needless to say that's a big NO NO. Mind you, where would that fighter of theirs have fared without a British Rolls-Royce engine, probably blown to bits - like Sherman's were.
The U.S. lost 1,000 tanks each month for the duration of the Normandy campaign, for a total of 12,000. This does not include other armored vehicles. The Russians lost up to 650 EACH DAY. Day after day. Total for the war about 85,000 to 110,000.
The winner of tank fights was the tank that fired first. The choice to continue with Sherman over the M-26 Pershing was a no brainer. The Sherman was a known quality. The Pershing wasn’t even a prototype when the decision for D-Day had to be made. This has been attributed to Patton by Belton Cooper’s work of fiction. Was the Sherman perfect? Hell, no. It was a series of compromises. All tanks were. The triangle of tank design was mobility, armor and firepower. Technology of the time said you could have any two of those, but not all. Sherman soldiered on into Korea and bested T-34’s. Israel was still using it until the mid Seventies. It was, likely, the best medium tank of WWII.
The Sherman was by far the best tank of WW2 in a big picture sense. It was big, comfortable amd basically a Chevy truck on tracks. In some ways the T34 was better than the Sherman but the Sherman was built to a finish that ensured far greater reliability than the T34 and the American logistics system was also superior. American tankers using American optics will kill the Russian tanks like roaches. The German tankers kicked the snot out of Russian armor up until the end of the war. Superiority of Western engineering and training and I admit this as an East European. Certainly on a one versus one basis the Tiger 2 eats the Sherman for lunch but American industry will ensure that doesn't really happen. It's going to be Tiger versus Sherman and his five twin brothers plus their cousins the P47s and their rockets. After the war Russian designers looked to Germany for military designs even moreso than their homegrown ideas. Germany just knows how to do things. Except how not to fight two front war I guessm
@@sergeipohkerova7211 The T-34 excelled when it comes to reliability even more so considering the conditions under which it was produced. The Sherman was produced under sterile conditions without any hurry or stress. Luckily for Sherman, it mostly faced older Panzers since the Germans used to send majority of their best armor (Panthers, Tiger 1s, Tiger 2s) to the eastern front. Aside from this, how exactly did the Russians "prefer" western/German military designs over their own??
The one huge advantage of the M4 Sherman was the shear numbers of Shermans. Building a tank is similar to building a car, and the USA manufacturers pumped them out like "hotcakes." Even though the German tanks were superior, the Germans couldn't make enough of them, they were precision made like the Porsches and Mercedes of today. And of course when they broke down, not just anyone are permitted to repair them. Eventually, the Allies learned to coordinate their attacks on the German tanks with rocket firing P51 Mustangs and the P47 Thunderbolts. Plus some of the German tanks was too heavy to cross some of the bridges, and they had to find alternative routes, and that costed time and fuel, which the Germans lacked because of the incessant Allied bombing.
Everybody says this, but it's a mistake. The Tiger tanks are heavy tanks and unreliable. Shermans are medium tanks. They are not meant to be equal head to head. The real comparison is Sherman vs Panzer IV - both are medium tanks - and in that comparison the Sherman does not suffer.
@@recoil53 Yes many German heavy tanks had transmission issues too. Rommel even said the standard parts to American tanks trucks and other supplies amazed him. The Sherman also had to go on ships across two oceans docks and cargo ships were not able to handles 57 ton monsters . The Sherman was also admired by the Soviets for its reliable drive train and fewer break downs.
@@ronmailloux8655 Really while Germans are amazing engineers, they did not have the time or heavy industry to correctly execute reliable working models. Also a weird national characteristic that has carried over - Germans really over engineer things. Too many parts, to intricate a design. Unrestrained they are a mess.
@recoil53 the Germans also seem to have built way too many different vehicles, which can cause logistical issues. Factories would fight over who gets certain materials.
I notice you missed an Allied aircraft that performed well with rockets, the Hawker Typhoon aka "Tiffy" and I forgot the aircraft that did wonders in the desert, the Hawker Hurricane Mk 2d with a 40mm cannon under each wing.
Tiger with his 88mm and his armor was unique in ww2 . Its a fact . The problem ? It was in small number for two fronts . But the german tank aces was with Tiger's most of them . If somebody know's tank aces from other armies like in german army i wait the answer.
Are you sure Patton had that much sway in influencing how the Shermans were designed? Are you sure you didn’t oversimplify? The Chieftain disagrees in his YT videos. It is much, much more complex than one general’s opinion.
2:40 mins and it's already full of misconceptions... Like I love how the narrator criticize the Americans for their design choices and tactics, deemed ineffective against the Germans... Who happened to follow almost the exact same principles. 😂
You can only have so much harded steel armour plate on a tank . On german tanks only the front of the hull of the tank hard thick armour rolled plate and from the sides and rear they were more vunerable. All tanks in WW2 had thin plate on the upper surfaces so howitzers and ground attack aircraft. Also the allies used their tactical bombers in Europe to great effect on German armour as saturation bombing either directly hit or landed close enough to do severe damage and making them unservicable.
In Korea the Sherman tank had a 2.4 kill to lost ratio against the T34/85. Better than the Pershing tank had in Korea, although I suspect this may be explained by Pershing tanks being given tougher missions. What did the Russians do with the thousands of lean/lease Sherman tanks we sent to them? Then used them in elite Guards Armor units. While in some respects, the T-34 was superior to the Sherman, the Russians clearly believed that the Sherman was, on the whole, superior to their own T-34.
Those Sherman tanks sold to the Soviets saw relatively little action and these were basic M4 variants with the mediocre 75mm gun which became totally obsolete by late 1943. When the T-34/85 appeared it was definitely superior to the Sherman family of tanks with its 85mm gun being roughly equivalent to the Panther's 75mm gun in terms of armor penetration but unlike the Panther's 75mm gun, the 85mm gun fired very powerful HE round.
What a horribly titled video given how much time it spends on non Sherman vehicles. Further, plenty of evidence exists showing that the medium velocity 75mm gun, that was standard on most Shermans, was actually quite more effective than people like to admit.
@@jacktattis Even against tanks it was more effective than most folks seem to believe. For the longest time I didn't think it was much good after 43, but stats proved me wrong, even against Panthers and Tigers the medium velocity gun was effective enough, particularly for the arenas in which it fought where long range shots were not very possible.
Well its Gun was inefficient against a Tiger once combat started the Tiger could blow the Sherman away at 2500m with its APCR and if the Sherman was an early one with the 75 L40 the APCBC could not penetrate better than 95mm @500 metres By which time the Tiger would have taken out the whole troop
@@jacktattis tigers were ultra rare to encounter as not many were produced but also they suffered from transmission failures further lowering the amount that actually were deployed. Most of germany armored forces were panzer 2, 3 and 4s
The Ronson was a post war lighter. So there is no way the Germans could of called it that. They did refer to them as “Tommy Cookers” but this was an umbrella term applied to all tanks fielded by the British, not just the American Sherman.
No, they didn't. It was supposedly the Brits that called it that because of Ronson lighter ads stating: "Ronson...lights first time, every time" Unfortunately, that ad never existed until AFTER the war. The Sherman never had any more propensity for "Brewing Up" than any other tank, and it had nothing to do with gasoline, it was the ammunition. When they got around to using wet stowage for the main guns rounds, that problem virtually disappeared. There's far too many mistakes made in this presentation to even want to point them out.
The Panther's and Tiger's biggest enemy was the Panther's and Tiger's. They broke down more often than not, and the ranges at which they could be knocked out with the 76mm was much longer than given here. The 17pdr had slightly more penetration, but weren't very accurate beyond about 500 yards Even the 75mm could penetrate the side armor of either the Panther or Tiger l from up to 800 yards. The 75mm could not penetrate the Tiger ll or Konigstiger from the front at any range, but the 76mm and 90mm could with the proper ammo.
17 pounder shots was deflected off Tiger 1 Tank too, Micheal Wittmann could testified to this at the Battle of Villers Bocage, and he was killed in his Tiger 1 with is crew by Canadian 75 mm M4 Shermans along two Tiger tanks, Two Panzer IV and Two Self propelled Guns by the Canadian 75mm Gun Tanks. The British 76 mm Fireflies destroy Three Tigers in Operation Totalize, the Sherman tanks wreck havoc on German at the Battle of Dompaire and Arracourt . The late Milton Cooper was maintenance officer in the rear what did he know about General Patton opinion of the M26 tanks .
The death of Wittmann is a very controversial topic, clouded by some poorly researched documentaries shown on TV since 2005. In 1985 the first investigation into Wittmann's death produced evidence from the War Diary of the British 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry that Wittmann's tank was destroyed by a Sherman MkVc Firefly of the regiment. Wittmann's tank 007 is recorded along with two other Tigers destroyed in a 20 minute firefight by the single Firefly. It was witnessed by several veterans of the unit. This account is generally accepted by serious historians as the true account, because of the documented proof. It should be noted at the time of the battle, tank 007 held no significance. It was the 1985 investigation that discovered who the tank commander was.
No, untrue, a lie and has been for years 17 pounders did NOT deflect off the Tiger It was a 17 Pdr that got Wittman and two of his troop at 800m in 12 minutes and those two Pz IVs were destroyed by a Firefly at 1645m Source S.A Hart Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 Pages 63-65 Oh and S A Hart is now a Doctor of Military History and a senior lecturer at Sandhurst
If your like me your favorite WW2 tank is a Tiger or a Panther not a Sherman, but when you think about 50k Shermans made it's pretty incredible! It would of been better for the tankers though if everyone of those 50k Shermans had a 17 pounder or 76mm gun. Yeah I know it wasn't realistic with U.S. tank doctrine and production but I bet the soldiers would of voted for them.
There’s a reason why they didn’t make every Sherman a firefly. The 75 mm was much better at using HE shells, which were used to destroy infantry positions and fortifications.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Yes, I do understand their reasoning because of what you said and the United States States tank doctrine was essentially for tanks to attack personnel and fortifications, not necessarily to engage in tank to tank warfare for which they used tank destroyers. That being said it would of been nicer for the tankers to have thicker armor and maybe a turret that can fit upgraded guns inside, kind of like the T-34. But I hear what you are saying and maybe that's why the U.S after making the Easy 8 with the 76mm gun used them in conjunction with the regular Shermans but in a more limited role in case of enemy tanks.
Most German tanks in Normandy were either abandoned or knocked out by their own crews. In perspective German guns knocked out way more Allied Armor and as far as aircraft knocking out tanks I read that tanks knocked out by aircraft was around 1.3%
The german tiger tank was the most feared Tank of all time, it would take five shermans to knock out one tiger head on the sherman could fire all day long and not even hurt a tiger tank, but once the germans got Tired of them firing they would just fire one eighty eight millimeter cannon And completely obliterate A sherman Tank the Sherman was called the death trap. The only reason why we won the war is because they overwhelmed the Germans with the sheer number of shermans. That they made, but the tiger tanks wiped out most of the shermans in world war two, there are only five shermans and only About 2 shermans that are still operable. There's only one German tiger tank and it still runs. It's in the Bovina tank museum in England there are about 5 Tigers, but only one runs. The panthers were a good tank. Also, the Germans have way better tanks than us Americans did. They still have the best tank today. The leopard 71 A. They took 5 leopard 71 a's over to You're crying They went into Russia and destroyed 100 Russian tanks with 5 German 7-1a German tanks so the germans 71 a is way better than the abrams m -1 The Germans always did have better tanks, and they always will. And now that we beat the Germans in World War 2 are our allies.
The Sherman A-4 Tank was the worst tank to come out of WW 2 for the Allies, head to head the The Sherman could not penetrate the Panther and Tiger armor, unlike the guns from both the Tiger and Panther which had no problem knocking out the Sherman, unlike the Sherman firefly with it's 17 Pounder which could easily knock out both of those tanks
"From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products." IWM Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks During The Second World War Sherman Death Trap: Veterans vs Historians www.youtube.com/watch? v=4qavgSW121E&lc=Ugz4-hPUxY8p08ruSt94AaABAg
@@nickdanger3802 Yes we had pee weak tanks, good armour, terrible guns up to the Comet with the occasional up gunned Churchill which had the best armour protection of all the western allied Tanks
The Sherman was s***. It got a little better with the bigger gun . The only thing going for it was that there were so many of them but think of the men that died . 😢
The T-34 wasn't that good of a tank. German tanks slaughtered them by the thousands. The Soviets however could absorb those losses, and the Germans could not.
![After Wittmann's Tiger Tank Rampage - The Fight back at Villers-Bocage [WW2 Documentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/u-kQQ40AyYU/mqdefault.jpg)
The 17 Pounder was awesome, the best allied tank gun of WW2, a complete gun and turret was sent to the US in early 1944 for mass production. General Lesley McNair, Commander-Army Ground Forces, rejected the 17 Pounder and also fought to cancel the M-26. They were contrary to his doctrine that heavy guns on tanks were not needed, as only Tank Destroyers were allowed to fight enemy tanks. This policy only changed when McNair was killed by friendly fire in Normandy 1944.
@billballbuster7186: I think you are correct about the 17 Pounder, but it was used mostly by the Brits and Canadians. I am not sure how many Fireflys the US had. In the movie "Fury" with Brad Pitt, the star of the M4 Firefly.
Also, there was a VERY high number of incidents of commanders on the ground using tank destroyers in the role of infantry support, using them as artillery, and only requesting high explosive rounds instead of armor piercing rounds for tank-on-tank encounters.
That was one of the prime reasons that so many tank destroyers got knocked out in an engagement.
It was kind of like having to use a knife in a gunfight, because the cartridges in your gun were all blanks.
@@ronaldlee3537The Tank Brad Pitt was in was not the Sherman Firefly. “Fury” was one of the 76MM versions of the M4. Called the M4A3E8 or also commonly referred to as the “Easy 8” The US did not use the Sherman Firefly.
@@ronaldlee3537 - In "Fury," Brad Pitt's - Sgt. Collier that is! - was not a Sherman Firefly w/ a 17-pounder gun. It was an M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman equipped with the 76mm M1 gun, which while an upgrade over the 75mm gun in terms of anti-tank performance, was not the equal of the British 17-pounder gun. The U.S. 76mm gun has a fairly long barrel and a dual-baffle muzzle brake, so it is somewhat easy to mistake it for the British gun, but if you look closer, the British 17-pounder has a rounded muzzle brake and is somewhat longer than the American gun. Apart from prototypes and things of that sort, the U.S. did not use or adopt the 17-pounder gun.
@@ronaldlee3537 The British supplied a 17 Pounder gun and turret so the US Army could adopt it. But McNair rejected it and so the only Sherman Firefly tanks were built by the British, 2,150 built 1944-45. However after McNair died the US Army placed orders for the Firefly and about 150 were supplied before the end of the war, but they were too late to see action.
Saying the Sherman’s 75mm gun was “underpowered” is relative. When the tank was designed and first used in 1940-1941 it was very comparable and superior to comparable tanks of the day like the t-34-76, panzer III, panzer IV, Cromwell. Only later in the war 1943-44 did it lag behind
M10s were deployed in March 1943 with the 3inch (76.2mm) gun M7.
Also keep in mind that by 45 many of the German's experience tankers had been killed and the Panzer Corp was just a shell of its former self. Its amazing how well they still fought though considering.
How well did the Sherman do in combat compared to the Pershing? We have only a few examples in World War II but the most famous example was the taking of the Ludendorff Bridge.
The Pershing was slow to be brought into combat in large part, due to concerns how well it would handle river crossings.
When the Pershing tanks reached the Rhine river near the Ludendorff Bridge, they gave effective cover fire, totally suppressing the fire of German infantry in a moored barge on the far bank, something a Sherman 75 mm could have done as well or better.
The Pershing tanks could not cross over the bomb damaged Ludendorff Bridge, nor could they cross over the pontoon bridges that were hurriedly thrown across. The Sherman tanks could cross over both and continued on into Germany.
Over the following days, the Pershing tanks were ferried over the Rhine, one at a time, by combat engineers, at about one or two per day. Something that is not really a problem, if you have an Engineering Company near by with nothing better to do and have no concerns about maintaining the tempo of an offensive.
How were the Germans able to handle their heavier Panthers and Tiger tanks? Simple. They were on the defensive. They didn't need to cross pontoon bridges. They could use permanent bridges that could support a heavy tank. It is important to remember that during the German offenses of 1939-1942, they weren't using Panthers and Tigers. They were using the much lighter Panzer III and IV's, even lighter than the Sherman tanks. Panzer divisions with Panthers and Tigers would have failed to cross the Meuse River so quickly, if at all, at Sedan in May 1940. Perhaps would have slowed them up enough for even the French high command to react quickly enough to stop them.
The Sherman was more reliable than the Pershing. The Pershing had quite a bit of mechanical problems.
Actually, the survival rate for the Sherman crews was the best of any tanks fielded by the allies.
Source please
@@jacktattis the chieftain has several videos on UA-cam.
@@williamromine5715 We had a Brit Major who had just come from the BAOR where he was on Chieftains to 2Cav RAAC where the largest thing we had was the M113AI FSV with a Scorpion Turret
He was not impressed
He did like how we had made our Fitters habitable
Gas Bottle and two burner stove fixed to the Ramp by a cradle
Two hammocks one each strung on the Left and right
Extra wide full length tool box RHS The lid was a bed at night with extra thick Foam Cushion
Enclosed sides for Shelves for our Bread Tinned Stuff My wifes' chilli sauce tinned butter Esky with ice for the first few days for our steaks . We lived well
Always handy when you served 5 years in a base workshop and the people who were still there fours years later
.@@jacktattis Total Armored Force kia December 1941 to December 1946, 1605, with 50% of those occurring outside the tank. Source Official US Army casualties list. I do not have the link on this pc but if you PM me I can send it to you once I get home. There is one caveat to those figures they do not include officers as there was no official armored branch during the War. Those totals are for all tank types. Rough average if an M4 was penetrated 4 of the 5 crew would survive. The Churchill may have a slightly higher crew survival rate.
@@brucenorman8904 Interesting Thank You
We have a Canadian Sherman Firefly from the Korean war in my town in Canada. The gun is so much bigger. It even runs .
Canadians used M4A3E8s in Korea
Yes it could our perform both at the front armour
Yes hit the lower shaped plate
The flash is Enormous
Hence the Firefly
The 76mm M1 was a good, very accurate gun - let down by poor quality ammo, both AP and HE. Only the very rare, late war APCR round was up to the task.
The reasons were multiple:
1) The tests were flawed. The test rounds did not have HE filler, and in addition the test armor was softer than German armor.
2) In combat the HE filler would often detonate at impact, causing the rounds to shatter.
3) Even if the bursting charge worked, the rounds itself were too soft and would often shatter anyway.
4) The 76mm M1 and 90mm M3 weren't tested in numbers in combat until late in the war, and when the problems became clear it was little time left of the war to fix the problems. As a result, both the 76mm M1 and 90mm M3 underperformed, although the latter was still useful.
Point #3 is self-contradictary. Soft does not shatter, if it did you know it's been hardened too much.
For metals, hard = brittle. That's why finding the right balance is difficult.
@recoil53 just look at the overrated T-34, the armor was brittle and shattered easily.
The M3 90mm did not underperform in WWll it did very well actually 👍
An interesting video. I think it overplays the conclusion that the Americans failed to prioritize the Pershing in the later phases of the war. The failure to include US tanks with the 76mm gun on D Day and to rush HVAP were mistakes. What this episode fails to do is to recognize that the American use of armour was part of a doctrine of combined arms that was executed better by the US Army than by anyone else in the war. The combined use of air, armour, artillery and infantry was of greater importance than the individual penetration statistics of a particular anti tank gun. Of course if you were in that lone Sherman that encountered a Panther head on those stats didn’t matter much.
76mm tanks were available close to 300 I believe. The 75mm gun had been getting the job done up to that point as the Americans had encountered very few Panthers in Italy. The units did not want to adopt a new tank with different ammo and maintenance requirements right before the invasion. Same issue with the HVAP. the 75mm and 3inch M7 gun had been working fine. as their primary opponents had been Panzer III and IVs along with Stugs. It was not until encountering Panthers in numbers that they realized they needed better Anti-tank capability. Also, Ordnance had mounted a 76mm gun on the M4 in 19423 but the Ground forces rejected it for the same reasons they rejected the Firefly conversion, bad ergonomics. Even after the advent of the 76mm M4 in numbers some tank units refused to accept them as their encounters with German armor were so rare, they preferred the superior HE performance of the 75mm gun. The Americans thought the Panther was another heavy German tank along the lines of the Tiger I. The British came to the conclusion that the Panther was going to be deployed in numbers.
I've tried to suggest one of The Chieftain's talks as another view of American armor, but my comment keeps getting lost somehow.
It's titled Myths of American Armor.
The were boos don't like truth that the Chieftain brings
At 2:35 it is said the Sherman's armor couldn't protect the crews. The German guns could penetrate just about anything short of the IS-2, so that wasn't an issue. The Sherman Jumbo had more armor than the King Tiger.
I think it depended all on tactics/approach and technical issues like armor,fire range etc.
You are talking about a middle weight going up against a heavy weight tank, the tank that had to bait both the Panther and Tiger was considered suicide and nobody wanted that job
Check out the tank museum in Bovington. They have Tiger and 17 pdr guns. The 17 pdr could penetrate more armour than the Tiger '88. The only problem was their accuracy.
The 17 Pounder standard APCBC ammo could penetrate Tiger 1 and Panther at battle ranges and was very accurate up to 1,500 meters. However some of the more powerful APDS ammo did have issues when first supplied. But it could still hit the front plate of a Tiger II at 500 meters. Improved ammo with greater accuracy appeared in 1945.
You forgot something ; the armor of Panther and Tiger vs Sherman ,dude. The 88mm from Tiger could destroy a Sherman from long distance without problem ,from the first hit. Tiger with his 88mm was unique ! Ask vet's ,read what the vet's said.
@@kniespel6243 Tiger and Panther were not very good at hitting moving tanks, even at 1,000 meters they had trouble. Long range accuracy was useless in NW Europe because of the terrain. Old Vets would say they were hit by a Tiger in the same way every German pilot said he was shot down by a Spitfire.
@@billballbuster7186Well, Not exactly the case. Panther's 75mm KwK-42 was one of the best guns, absolutely flat trajectory and high accuracy with good penetration. This gun was better than the 88mm KwK-36 of Tiger-I. And talking about the legendary gun of WW-2, it is has no doubt KwK-43, 88mm used in Tiger-II, Jagdpanther, Ferdinand and Nashorn
@@livingroomtheatre174 In tests the 17 Pounder was considered superior in penetration to the US 90mm the 8.8cm KwK.36 and 7.5cm KwK.42. The 8.8cm KwK.43 was bettered by the 32 Pounder on the A39 Tortoise. Its armour penetration was not surpassed until the L7 105mm firing APFSDS on the 1980s
the problem with the M-26 was its weight. the cranes at most ports could only lift ~30 Tons, this happened to be the weight of the sherman. if you can't ship or unload a tank, why build it?
Even the upgraded high velocity 76mm gun on the newer M4A3E8 Shermans had trouble against German Tigers and Panthers during the war but it really didn't matter because by 1944 those tanks were rare to see on the battlefields in European theater. It wasn't until the Battle of the Bulge when the King Tiger came out that the Americans experienced massive losses. Actually the biggest killer of Allied armored vehicles was the Germans Stug 3 tank destroyer and Panzershrech rocket launchers.
King Tiger came out in July 1944 (?)
3 were sent to Normandy before any got sent to Russia
The British 17pounder was one of the few guns which could kill a Tiger tank with a single shot.
How close to the Tiger did it needed to be? 10 feet?
@@thenevadadesertrat2713 1000m was a walk in the park, after all they were tested out to 2500m in ballistics tests
@@jacktattisfor a Tiger I but not the Tiger 2
@@brucenorman8904 Yes it was formidable but it could be disabled from the side/ the rear. Even the 75mm could disable them .
Knock a wheel station or two off and the tracks fall off Come back at your leisure and blow it to hell After all its thinnest was only 40mm;
By late 44 the Allies had a few tricks of their own
@@jacktattis - Yes, but the Tiger was safe at that distance because the 17 couldn't hit it...
Wasn't looking for a Blitzkrieg 101 rehash
Totally agree I love the Sherman Firefly, Martin in the Uk
Logistics... logistics... logistics... the Pershing was too heavy to use our pontoon bridges, and other equipment. Plus, it could be knocked out by Tigers from the front, and anything from the side. The 17# was the way to go, but required a 4-man crew and carried larger - but fewer - shells. Pick your poison.
In the lead up to D-Day the Armor divison commanders could decided to include some 76mm armed M4 Sherman. At the cost of additional training and especially the problem of an increased logistics burden.
Panthers and Tigers were still new to the US Army. In retrospect that decision can be questioned. Remember that tanks were part of American doctrinal way of war. Even had they knowledge of panther and tigers the decision may have been the same one made
Fun to see SOMEBODY that wasn't educated by one book and The History Channel...
I am sure this was well intended ,but there are quite valid reasons that they hel dc off on withholding 76mm shermans during the first stages of Normandy. Check out the Chieftain vids .
Good video! If you want even more on the subject of Shermans overall. I'll refer everyone to The Chieftain's excellent video on US tank doctrine where he exhaustively covers the Sherman and how serviceable and flexible it was. The 17 lbs was a fantastic anti tank gun and the British found a way to stuff it in a standard Sherman turret and it wasn't ergonomic to use. It was a good compromise. The US didn't think it was practical. The 75 had a better HE round and the British fixed this by putting one Firefly in each platoon of 75mm armed Shermans. Sometimes i think we should of incorporated more of the hard won lessons the British learned earlier on.
And how was the 75mm HE better than the 76.2mm HE round of the Firefly ?
@@jacktattisHi Jack, my understanding is it, the 75 mm, had a larger amount of explosives because less of the round was made of hardened metal . The 76 mm was designed as a anti armor round so thicker shell wall.
@@dennisswaim8210 The A/P rounds may have been I doubt the HE would have
@@jacktattisHi again Jack. Well that's what I've read as far as the 75mm vs. The American 76 mm. As for the British 17 pounder goes I don't know. It was a big round but I haven't heard much about the 17 pounder's HE. I have even asked of these forums if it actually had a HE round no response. I 've got alot of literature on AFV's but I can't find a reference. You would think it had to of had one but alot of the early British guns didn't, such as the 2 Lbs and 6 lbs. That's one of the reasons the American 75 on the Lee/ Grant's and later the Sherman was so well received by the British in North Africa. Gave them a?good HE round to use on infantry and anti- tank guns.
@@jacktattis The Firefly didn't fire ANY HE round. IT was a tank killer ONLY. Please do your homework.
Oddball had the only realistic approach to the Tiger v. Sherman problem. :)
the brits up guned it,the germans called it tommy cooker
They burned up as much as any other petrol tank. The main problem was ammunition storage.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Which is why they changed to wet stowage - fixed the problem.
In 1942 when the first Shermans were heading to the British 8th army , the 76 mm was considered for the M4 and tests were down by the bureau of ordinance. They considered the original Sherman turret to be a little bit cramped with the 76 mm. Even though it was a success. So the Allies could have had a 76 mm Sherman in 1943, but it was rejected. After the war many shermans were converted to 76 mm with original turret, these tanks were transferred to allied Nations after the war.
I believe the first 76mm M1 wasn't a good enough improvement as a tank killer. The M1A2 was better but still not close to the British 17-pounder.
@@Slaktrax 76.2 mm M2 was very accurate unlike the 17 pdr , and with HVAP ammo was almost as good as 17 pdr.
@@nighthawk8053 The 17 pounder was accurate, read my last post, it wasn't fabricated, neither is there any reason to be biased. The intermittent accuracy at long ranges was affected only when using the then new APDS ammo.
You need to check your information if you mean the M1A2, there's enough detail on Wiki unless you go to a website dedicated to guns of this type.
The closest match to the 17-pounder was the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 (L/70)
I've done the research on this myself, you do the same.
@@Slaktrax M1A2 was more accurate,but 17 pdr had better penetration at normal combat ranges under 1000 m . 76 had a decent HE round too but not as good as the M3 75mm.
There were no 90mm armed M26 Pershing tanks in June of 1944. Production wasn’t even available. It was still in development.
By the Fall of 1944. Before the BoB, the 90mm armed M36 Jackson was in NW Europe. The Army wasn’t keeping 90mm armed vehicle out of Europe! Nor did General Patton hinder the M26 getting too Europe. That was all decided stateside and being requested by General Eisenhower
No allied tank ever penetrated the King Tiger’s frontal armour in WW2. The 17 pounder was an awesome gun, although not as accurate as any of the 88’s, a huge difference when it came to tank on tank battles as the optics on German tanks and the fact that first to shoot usually won a tank battle.
As brave as the US tank men were they were let down by the top brass with the Sherman, disgraceful that the Pershing wasn’t manufactured in big numbers earlier. Criminal actually
The 75mm gun did not "sacrifice firepower for maneuverability." The 75mm gun was a multi use gun, armor piercing, HE, etc. It was a great weapon for all around use. The 75mm L/40 (M3/M6) HVAP T45 Round could take out a Tiger I at 1000 to 2000 yards from the side. The Tiger I had 60 mm (2.4 in) thick hull side plates and 80 mm armour on the side superstructure/sponsons, while turret sides and rear were 80 mm.
Keep in mind that 'medium' Shermans were fighting 'heavy' Tigers. That said, Americans weren't stupid. They avoided head-on tank vs tank fights. That was mostly in the movies.
agar lebih taktis...dlm pembuatan nya.....bisa jual di pasaran karna sydah teruji aman....saat di pakai.
The 17 Pounder was very effective against tanks, as an anti-tank gun. Stuffed sideways into a Sherman tank, not totally effective. Fundamental problem, very hard to aim. Many Sherman Fireflies battles involved the Firefly firing, and missing a German tank. The gun was hard to aim while mounted sideways. But not impossible.
In August 1944, a Sherman Firefly knocked out 3 Tigers in quick succession, including Panzer Ace Michael Wittman's tank, killing him. They also knocked out a fourth tank, before having their own tank knocked out, with the entire crew escaping.
Clearly, this was a very good crew who worked well together. Particularly the gunner, who unlike most gunners, was a master at aiming the sideways mounted 17-pounder in the confined space of the Sherman's turret. What did the British officers do? They split up the crew, of course. Sent individual members as replacement member on various tanks. The key man, the gunner, was at least assigned to another Firefly tank. But as a radio operator! How dumb can you get? I imagine a lot of his radio messages (or that of his tank's commander's) to the platoon commander was "We have fired on the Panther but missed. We are trying again."
This was insane. They should have put the entire crew into a different tank, which has to be a Firefly Sherman. With everyone in the previous role. Kick out the crew of an underperforming tank if you have to. They can be split up as replacement crew members. But get those five operating as a team again as soon as possible. But the British liked to bumble through. If you sideline the victorious commander of Fighter Command in 1940 to make way for more politically adept subordinates, I guess I see no reason not to split up a winning tank crew.
Very hard to aim 2 x Panzers in quick succession at 1645m would put a lie to that and Ekins 3 in 5 shots at 800m was another one and then there was Sgt Harris of the 4/7 Dragoons that got 5 in 5 shots from 800m for two panthers the other 3 are not recorded at what distance he engaged them
you better check your facts bud , 76mm tank destroyers against Panthers , Battle of Arra court the 76mm did penn the panthers. and the Hellcat was not the first TD with a 76mm gun , the m10 was. and at Aberdeen Proving Grounds the 76mm was tested against the 17pdr penn was only slightly less with better accuracy.
They helped to win the war.
Yes they did but that does not detract from the statement that they were a flawed design Good Bunker busting gun but too high, at least 2 ft higher than all the tanks in the west and in the Bocage country the Germans were able to easily set ambushes
It was not the Sherman tanks primary job to kill tanks, this is what tank destroyers were for.
Here is what I simply do NOT understand. Why didn’t they cut the shell casing of the 76.2mm round to about let’s say 1/3 of it’s length and fill it with propellant leaving enough room for a shell. Then take an empty 76.2 mm shell and stretch the shell till shell and shell casing combined are as long as the armor piercing round. Fill the stretched shell with, let’s say, 2 pounds of high explosive material; place it in the cut down, propellant filled shell casing and ‘Voila! You now have an excellent 76.2mm General Purpose, High Explosive Round. Of course you would have had to play with the amount of propellant to get the velocity and shell length right, but this doable.
EDIT: Am I the only one to think of this?
One problem was logistical. The Shermans had to be hauled across an ocean. I've read that captured German tankers said "It's easy to kill American tanks. But when we kill one, five take its place."
The US tank doctrine was to support infantry rather to engage tank. Against the Panthers,The Sherman must engage the side with its short barrel 75mm.
The Sherman was designed to break through and shoot up the enemy’s rear areas. It was not meant to directly engage enemy armor.
The British Army liked the American 75mm gun so much they would take them out of destroyed Shermans and install them on their Churchill tanks.
That’s not correct
The Churchill tank had a 6 pounder breach with the barrel bored out to 75mils
With an external sherman gun shield? ://i.imgur.com/62IqO29.jpeg
Yes in Egypt they did but it was a local mod only
@@jacktattis
The Churchill didn’t serve in Egypt
It was first used in Tunisia
@@grahamlowe314 David Miller Tanks of the World page 348 and 349 It states some North African Churchills were reworked in Egypt
Now 1. North Africa not Tunisia two different theatres of Operation and 2. They may have been worked at the Base Workshops by REME
It shouldn't have been like that. But when Paton discovered what he British had done he stop the American units from getting the
Because he thought he knew best and didn't like that the British had put the bigger gun on them. IT WAS IN ANOTHER DOCUMENTARY I SAW. IT WAS THE SAME ONE I HEARD WHAT THE brits had proved the Sherman tank
No it was NOT Patton it was Gen Leary
Most tank losses were not from tank on tank but from anti-tank guns and panzerfaust . There was only 6000 Panthers and around 1349 Tiger 1 under 500Tiger 2's Over 50000 Sherman were made. The side armor of Panther was only 40mm to 50mm that be penetrated by the 75mm of the Sherman . Encounters with the (Boogie man) the Panther and Tiger were very rare. Any Sherman was a better tank then any German tank .
100 % correct!
The Sherman was no better than ANY German tank the PZIV with the 75mm L48 gun was more than equal to the early Sherman it was only the late Sherman that had 100mm Armour and at below 1800m the L48 could penetrate the Sherman The Sherman 75 could NOT do the same to the PZIV
Not all Sherman's were intended to engage in armor vs armor combat. Originally there were 76 mm. guns capable of killing most German armor. The 76mm tanks plus the tank destroyer sections held in reserve until needed.
The problem with having those big guns in the rear made no sense what so ever, did they wait until all the Sherman tanks were knocked out then bring them up, how many lives were lost
ua-cam.com/video/bNjp_4jY8pY/v-deo.html
We should remember when looking at US tank losses during the European campaign that the US was almost continually on the offense. Often times the Germans were able to dig in or find advantageous fighting positions and wait for the Americans to advance. This created numerous opportunities to destroy tanks in great numbers. Also, many of the American tanks destroyed during the European campaign were almost certainly destroyed by towed anti-tank guns. it’s doubtful that the Americans would always know whether a tank was destroyed by another tank or by an anti-tank gun.
The Americans for some reason, didn't want any of the Funny Tanks developed for Normandy.
The only Tank taken by them, weren't understood by the US high command, which sent the Tanks from 3 miles away, which due to this and sea state so far out, they all sank.
The British on the other used all of them to great effect? These were, Flail tanks, Mortar tanks, Bridging & track layers + off course Firefly 17 pounder equipped.
This is why the Americans took heavy losses, still can't see why their lack of lateral thinking,,unless they have a fixed number of casualties in mind and didn't care.
They really let their tank crews down, especially the Firefly.
I can't believe Patton allowed this.
Patton was NOT the COG of the USArmy in the field. That was Gen. Bradley. Patton only commanded the Third Army
Sherman caught fire, airplane gasoline
It's was not the engine it was the storage of the ammo . That's y they went to wet storage racks . The ammo storage boxes were surrounded with antifreeze
No more than panthers caught fire.
@@kenchristenson7548 No the Shermans WERE notorious for it,
Did the Soviets feel the same way regarding their T34 tanks? I know they manufactured at least as many, if not more than the US M4.
17 pounder kicked ass
I am sure Patton was a great commander but I think he is over-rated due to his bravado and the movie. His losses were high.
Yes 55000 on the Lorraine Metz campaign
Tbe Germans called the Sherman's "Silly little American tanks?" But US had enough to overwhelm the bigger German tanks
Figures "Old Blood 'N' Guts" Patton would choose the high production with the Shermans over crew survivability and better offensive power of the Pershing. He's definitely "The ends justify the means" type of guy not putting the safety of his soldiers first.
@ John14-6 - Re: "Figures "Old Blood 'N' Guts" Patton would choose the high production with the Shermans over crew survivability and better offensive power of the Pershing."
Patton cited U.S. Army doctrine to a tee when rendering his decision against hurrying the M-26 to the ETO in time for D-Day, namely that the tank destroyer command was responsible for fighting enemy armor, and that the tanks were supposed to create and exploit breakthroughs with the infantry. He also cited that with berthing space critical aboard trans-Atlantic shipping, that two M4s would be shipped in the space/weight allotment for one M-26.
Having said that, his decision was arguably the wrong one. Although as a cavalryman, Patton was a master of mobile, fasting-moving mechanized warfare, his understanding of tanks themselves was not all that great. He simply didn't have the background in mechanical engineering, metallurgy, ballistics, or other arcane subjects, to make the kind of technical decisions he was sometimes called upon to make. This is no knock on Patton, who is deservedly a legend.... it is simply to note that like many of the senior officers of that time, Patton didn't have the technical background necessary to understand how tanks were designed and how they functioned in the field.
How could they? These are men who were born in the late 1800s, and who came up as cavalrymen. Tanks were brand-new weapons in the Great War, by which time these men were - some of them anyway - junior or even field-grade officers.
So, Patton probably relied on his staff and technical experts of various kinds, as well as reports he was getting up the chain of command. If they didn't supply him and the other generals with accurate information, or if having gotten it, the brass ignored it, one can see how incorrect and/or poor decisions could be made. Ike claimed to have been blindsided by the mediocre performance of the 76mm gun at Normandy, and said he'd been told it was a "wonder weapon" on par with the German 88. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of SHAEF, wasn't even getting accurate, timely information.... wow!
All armies are rank-conscious, right? For the lower-ranking personnel, sometimes, it isnt easy to contradict or go against the views of someone much more senior to you. And some brass are better at listening to subordinates than others.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961Why was it the wrong decision ?
AGF was the safest army branch in Europe, infantry had 4x the casualty rate.
Company level attacks already suffered around 20% casualties with about half wounded when attacking defended positions held by similar forces.
1 supporting tank cut that down to about 3-4% dead and 5% wounded. 2 Tanks and you generally had about even odds of a dead man and upto 5 wounded.
WW2 was handily won by the allies.
Problem ? Nah.
The Pershing, while powerful, was not very reliable.
@@dwwolf4636 - Re: "Why was it the wrong decision ?"
Just my opinion. You don't have to like it. It's called a reading of the evidence,and it is what historians do. My interpretation differs from yours, which is fine. Happens all the time. Deal with it. Or not. Either way, I don't have the time to debate strangers on the internet regarding the fine points of WW2 history.
Patton lost 55000 in his Lorraine Metz campaign
The standard operating procedure was for Allied infantry and tanks to call in Allied artillery especially the 155 mm Artillery to fire on German Armor as everyone knew Allied tanks could not stand up to the better German Tiger and Panther tanks. However, you could kill the German Panther by hitting its weaker Sides and Rears.
Despite the 17 lbs being the best answer, it was British and needless to say that's a big NO NO. Mind you, where would that fighter of theirs have fared without a British Rolls-Royce engine, probably blown to bits - like Sherman's were.
The U.S. lost 1,000 tanks each month for the duration of the Normandy campaign, for a total of 12,000. This does not include other armored vehicles. The Russians lost up to 650 EACH DAY. Day after day. Total for the war about 85,000 to 110,000.
No 7375 tanks and Armoured Vehicles from Jun 6 44 to May 15 45
The british got tired of being in a tommy cooker
That’s because they stuffed it with ammunition like a Thanksgiving turkey.
The winner of tank fights was the tank that fired first.
The choice to continue with Sherman over the M-26 Pershing was a no brainer. The Sherman was a known quality. The Pershing wasn’t even a prototype when the decision for D-Day had to be made. This has been attributed to Patton by Belton Cooper’s work of fiction.
Was the Sherman perfect? Hell, no. It was a series of compromises. All tanks were.
The triangle of tank design was mobility, armor and firepower. Technology of the time said you could have any two of those, but not all.
Sherman soldiered on into Korea and bested T-34’s. Israel was still using it until the mid Seventies.
It was, likely, the best medium tank of WWII.
The Sherman was by far the best tank of WW2 in a big picture sense. It was big, comfortable amd basically a Chevy truck on tracks. In some ways the T34 was better than the Sherman but the Sherman was built to a finish that ensured far greater reliability than the T34 and the American logistics system was also superior. American tankers using American optics will kill the Russian tanks like roaches. The German tankers kicked the snot out of Russian armor up until the end of the war. Superiority of Western engineering and training and I admit this as an East European. Certainly on a one versus one basis the Tiger 2 eats the Sherman for lunch but American industry will ensure that doesn't really happen. It's going to be Tiger versus Sherman and his five twin brothers plus their cousins the P47s and their rockets. After the war Russian designers looked to Germany for military designs even moreso than their homegrown ideas. Germany just knows how to do things. Except how not to fight two front war I guessm
@@sergeipohkerova7211
The T-34 excelled when it comes to reliability even more so considering the conditions under which it was produced. The Sherman was produced under sterile conditions without any hurry or stress. Luckily for Sherman, it mostly faced older Panzers since the Germans used to send majority of their best armor (Panthers, Tiger 1s, Tiger 2s) to the eastern front.
Aside from this, how exactly did the Russians "prefer" western/German military designs over their own??
The one huge advantage of the M4 Sherman was the shear numbers of Shermans. Building a tank is similar to building a car, and the USA manufacturers pumped them out like "hotcakes." Even though the German tanks were superior, the Germans couldn't make enough of them, they were precision made like the Porsches and Mercedes of today. And of course when they broke down, not just anyone are permitted to repair them. Eventually, the Allies learned to coordinate their attacks on the German tanks with rocket firing P51 Mustangs and the P47 Thunderbolts. Plus some of the German tanks was too heavy to cross some of the bridges, and they had to find alternative routes, and that costed time and fuel, which the Germans lacked because of the incessant Allied bombing.
Everybody says this, but it's a mistake.
The Tiger tanks are heavy tanks and unreliable. Shermans are medium tanks. They are not meant to be equal head to head.
The real comparison is Sherman vs Panzer IV - both are medium tanks - and in that comparison the Sherman does not suffer.
@@recoil53 Yes many German heavy tanks had transmission issues too. Rommel even said the standard parts to American tanks trucks and other supplies amazed him. The Sherman also had to go on ships across two oceans docks and cargo ships were not able to handles 57 ton monsters . The Sherman was also admired by the Soviets for its reliable drive train and fewer break downs.
@@ronmailloux8655 Really while Germans are amazing engineers, they did not have the time or heavy industry to correctly execute reliable working models.
Also a weird national characteristic that has carried over - Germans really over engineer things. Too many parts, to intricate a design. Unrestrained they are a mess.
@recoil53 the Germans also seem to have built way too many different vehicles, which can cause logistical issues. Factories would fight over who gets certain materials.
I notice you missed an Allied aircraft that performed well with rockets, the Hawker Typhoon aka "Tiffy" and I forgot the aircraft that did wonders in the desert, the Hawker Hurricane Mk 2d with a 40mm cannon under each wing.
Tiger with his 88mm and his armor was unique in ww2 . Its a fact . The problem ? It was in small number for two fronts . But the german tank aces was with Tiger's most of them . If somebody know's tank aces from other armies like in german army i wait the answer.
Even if they built more Tigers, they still would’ve lost.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 nobody know. We are not relative with Nostradamus. :)
Sherman 105 go DURP!
Are you sure Patton had that much sway in influencing how the Shermans were designed? Are you sure you didn’t oversimplify? The Chieftain disagrees in his YT videos. It is much, much more complex than one general’s opinion.
2:40 mins and it's already full of misconceptions... Like I love how the narrator criticize the Americans for their design choices and tactics, deemed ineffective against the Germans... Who happened to follow almost the exact same principles. 😂
The Germans referred to the sherman as a tin can.
You can only have so much harded steel armour plate on a tank . On german tanks only the front of the hull of the tank hard thick armour rolled plate and from the sides and rear they were more vunerable. All tanks in WW2 had thin plate on the upper surfaces so howitzers and ground attack aircraft. Also the allies used their tactical bombers in Europe to great effect on German armour as saturation bombing either directly hit or landed close enough to do severe damage and making them unservicable.
In Korea the Sherman tank had a 2.4 kill to lost ratio against the T34/85. Better than the Pershing tank had in Korea, although I suspect this may be explained by Pershing tanks being given tougher missions.
What did the Russians do with the thousands of lean/lease Sherman tanks we sent to them? Then used them in elite Guards Armor units. While in some respects, the T-34 was superior to the Sherman, the Russians clearly believed that the Sherman was, on the whole, superior to their own T-34.
Lend/Lease
Those Sherman tanks sold to the Soviets saw relatively little action and these were basic M4 variants with the mediocre 75mm gun which became totally obsolete by late 1943. When the T-34/85 appeared it was definitely superior to the Sherman family of tanks with its 85mm gun being roughly equivalent to the Panther's 75mm gun in terms of armor penetration but unlike the Panther's 75mm gun, the 85mm gun fired very powerful HE round.
What a horribly titled video given how much time it spends on non Sherman vehicles. Further, plenty of evidence exists showing that the medium velocity 75mm gun, that was standard on most Shermans, was actually quite more effective than people like to admit.
Not against other Tanks Good bunker buster
@@jacktattis Even against tanks it was more effective than most folks seem to believe. For the longest time I didn't think it was much good after 43, but stats proved me wrong, even against Panthers and Tigers the medium velocity gun was effective enough, particularly for the arenas in which it fought where long range shots were not very possible.
Why didn't they put a 90mm gun on them? So stupid? They knew it but didn't upgrade it? Keep the same tank just put a-Bigger gun on it!
I quit watching 2 minutes in. Still peddling the ‘it took 5 Sherman’s to take on 1 tiger’ nonsense.
Yeah that tactic is all bs. Why deliberately sacrifice yourself bum rushing a tank in the open and the like lol.
The Chieftain believes the myth likely came from squad sizes. Shermans were in squads of 5.
Well its Gun was inefficient against a Tiger once combat started the Tiger could blow the Sherman away at 2500m with its APCR and if the Sherman was an early one with the 75 L40 the APCBC could not penetrate better than 95mm @500 metres By which time the Tiger would have taken out the whole troop
@@jacktattis tigers were ultra rare to encounter as not many were produced but also they suffered from transmission failures further lowering the amount that actually were deployed. Most of germany armored forces were panzer 2, 3 and 4s
A bit repetitive and contains inaccuracies.
the Germans called it the RONSON for a reason
No. They didn't. Please stop repeating urban legends.
The Ronson was a post war lighter. So there is no way the Germans could of called it that. They did refer to them as “Tommy Cookers” but this was an umbrella term applied to all tanks fielded by the British, not just the American Sherman.
No, they didn't.
It was supposedly the Brits that called it that because of Ronson lighter ads stating:
"Ronson...lights first time, every time"
Unfortunately, that ad never existed until AFTER the war.
The Sherman never had any more propensity for "Brewing Up" than any other tank, and it had nothing to do with gasoline, it was the ammunition.
When they got around to using wet stowage for the main guns rounds, that problem virtually disappeared.
There's far too many mistakes made in this presentation to even want to point them out.
British called them Ronsons,the Germab called them Tommy Cookers.Tommy Atkins was a Brit soldier like ours were G.I.Joe's.
Ronson didn't even come out till the 1950s
Keep on perpetuating that myth
I can't stand how he pronounces millimeter.
The Panther's and Tiger's biggest enemy was the Panther's and Tiger's.
They broke down more often than not, and the ranges at which they could be knocked out with the 76mm was much longer than given here.
The 17pdr had slightly more penetration, but weren't very accurate beyond about 500 yards
Even the 75mm could penetrate the side armor of either the Panther or Tiger l from up to 800 yards.
The 75mm could not penetrate the Tiger ll or Konigstiger from the front at any range, but the 76mm and 90mm could with the proper ammo.
Some footage here is definitely from the Eastern Front and therefore not relevant
17 pounder shots was deflected off Tiger 1 Tank too, Micheal Wittmann could testified to this at the Battle of Villers Bocage, and he was killed in his Tiger 1 with is crew by Canadian 75 mm M4 Shermans along two Tiger tanks, Two Panzer IV and Two Self propelled Guns by the Canadian 75mm Gun Tanks. The British 76 mm Fireflies destroy Three Tigers in Operation Totalize, the Sherman tanks wreck havoc on German at the Battle of Dompaire and Arracourt . The late Milton Cooper was maintenance officer in the rear what did he know about General Patton opinion of the M26 tanks .
The death of Wittmann is a very controversial topic, clouded by some poorly researched documentaries shown on TV since 2005.
In 1985 the first investigation into Wittmann's death produced evidence from the War Diary of the British 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry that Wittmann's tank was destroyed by a Sherman MkVc Firefly of the regiment. Wittmann's tank 007 is recorded along with two other Tigers destroyed in a 20 minute firefight by the single Firefly. It was witnessed by several veterans of the unit.
This account is generally accepted by serious historians as the true account, because of the documented proof. It should be noted at the time of the battle, tank 007 held no significance. It was the 1985 investigation that discovered who the tank commander was.
You mean Belton Cooper?
No, untrue, a lie and has been for years 17 pounders did NOT deflect off the Tiger It was a 17 Pdr that got Wittman and two of his troop at 800m in 12 minutes and those two Pz IVs were destroyed by a Firefly at 1645m Source S.A Hart Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 Pages 63-65 Oh and S A Hart is now a Doctor of Military History and a senior lecturer at Sandhurst
Second guessing doesn't prove much!
If your like me your favorite WW2 tank is a Tiger or a Panther not a Sherman, but when you think about 50k Shermans made it's pretty incredible! It would of been better for the tankers though if everyone of those 50k Shermans had a 17 pounder or 76mm gun. Yeah I know it wasn't realistic with U.S. tank doctrine and production but I bet the soldiers would of voted for them.
What Leopard?
@@MasonboyMasiel Thanks, I will edit. I meant Panther
There’s a reason why they didn’t make every Sherman a firefly. The 75 mm was much better at using HE shells, which were used to destroy infantry positions and fortifications.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 Yes, I do understand their reasoning because of what you said and the United States States tank doctrine was essentially for tanks to attack personnel and fortifications, not necessarily to engage in tank to tank warfare for which they used tank destroyers. That being said it would of been nicer for the tankers to have thicker armor and maybe a turret that can fit upgraded guns inside, kind of like the T-34. But I hear what you are saying and maybe that's why the U.S after making the Easy 8 with the 76mm gun used them in conjunction with the regular Shermans but in a more limited role in case of enemy tanks.
A lot of misinformation being spread here🙄
Tell us what and where.
Most German tanks in Normandy were either abandoned or knocked out by their own crews. In perspective German guns knocked out way more Allied Armor and as far as aircraft knocking out tanks I read that tanks knocked out by aircraft was around 1.3%
Could be the fact remains they were defeated no matter by which method.
The german tiger tank was the most feared Tank of all time, it would take five shermans to knock out one tiger head on the sherman could fire all day long and not even hurt a tiger tank, but once the germans got Tired of them firing they would just fire one eighty eight millimeter cannon And completely obliterate A sherman Tank the Sherman was called the death trap. The only reason why we won the war is because they overwhelmed the Germans with the sheer number of shermans. That they made, but the tiger tanks wiped out most of the shermans in world war two, there are only five shermans and only About 2 shermans that are still operable. There's only one German tiger tank and it still runs. It's in the Bovina tank museum in England there are about 5 Tigers, but only one runs.
The panthers were a good tank. Also, the Germans have way better tanks than us Americans did. They still have the best tank today. The leopard 71 A. They took 5 leopard 71 a's over to You're crying They went into Russia and destroyed 100 Russian tanks with 5 German 7-1a German tanks so the germans 71 a is way better than the abrams m -1 The Germans always did have better tanks, and they always will.
And now that we beat the Germans in World War 2 are our allies.
The Sherman A-4 Tank was the worst tank to come out of WW 2 for the Allies, head to head the The Sherman could not penetrate the Panther and Tiger armor, unlike the guns from both the Tiger and Panther which had no problem knocking out the Sherman, unlike the Sherman firefly with it's 17 Pounder which could easily knock out both of those tanks
"From late 1942, US tanks were required in increasing numbers to make up for the deficiencies of home-grown products."
IWM Britain's Struggle To Build Effective Tanks During The Second World War
Sherman Death Trap: Veterans vs Historians www.youtube.com/watch?
v=4qavgSW121E&lc=Ugz4-hPUxY8p08ruSt94AaABAg
@@nickdanger3802 Yes we had pee weak tanks, good armour, terrible guns up to the Comet with the occasional up gunned Churchill which had the best armour protection of all the western allied Tanks
The Sherman was s***. It got a little better with the bigger gun . The only thing going for it was that there were so many of them but think of the men that died . 😢
It wasn’t the best but it got the job done.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 And that was the problem That was how the Generals thought It will do.
Full of falsehoods
Korean footage
watch this yall
T-34 best tank ever built,fight me :)
Centurion
Centurion will make short work of that
The T-34 wasn't that good of a tank. German tanks slaughtered them by the thousands. The Soviets however could absorb those losses, and the Germans could not.
Big piece of garbage
Yall?
Stupid mistake by both Patton & Ike.
Not really