The Five Best Tanks of World War II
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2024
- Tanks. World War II. This video pretty much markets itself.
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
TodayIFoundOut: / todayifoundout
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Biographics: / @biographics
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
The main disappointment of the *Firefly* was that it was cancelled after only one season.
Well played sir
I understood that reference
Should've had grenades.
Excellent. Underappreciated comment 👍
Burn the Land, Boil the Sea, You can't take the Skies from Me.
I have to point out that the Tiger wasn't designed "specifically" to counter the Soviet T-34 and KV-1 tanks, it had been under development since 1937. The Panzerwaffe had already experienced their tank park of mostly light tanks, including the Czech 38(t) which made up 25% of "Germany's" tank forces, at times had difficulty dealing with the French Char B1 and the British Matilda II tanks, but believed that it was more important to improve upon existing designs than to go back to the drawing board. Hence why the Mark III finally got the L60 5 cm gun that could take on most opponents at normal combat ranges, and the Mark IV was upgunning from its puny 7.5 cm L24 gun to a bona fide tank-killing KwK 40. These machines actually did the brunt of the fighting in 1942 and 1943, and made up about 80% of the available tanks in "Citadel" in July 1943. The Tiger, originally envisioned to be about 35 tons and sporting the 7.5 c KwK 40 and later the KwK 42, was instead re-fitted with the KwK 36 88mm gun, which, using armor-piercing shot, not only could penetrate even the thickest armor of the Soviet heavies at long, "stand-off" ranges, it was far more accurate that most contemporary tank guns, as British firing tests on the weapon from a Tiger captured in 1943 (I think it was the famous "Tiger 131" which is seen in "Fury") proved. The main issue with the Tiger is that the tactics that best took advantage of its armor and firepower weren't readily apparent, but soon, being forced mostly on the defensive, it came into its own as a "Panzerjager".
With the Panther, entirely different story. Guderian had been against development of anything larger than the Mark IV, due to problems with rail transport and crossing Russia's many rivers with either available bridges, IF captured intact, or available bridging gear. He also favored the Heer adopting the practice of forming "anti-tank" and "artillery" divisions as there were in the Soviet Army. As far as "Schnell Heinz" was concerned, the Mark IV was all the tank the Panzerwaffe needed. Although the Germans had been surprised by the T-34 and KV-1 tanks almost from the beginning of Barbarossa, they were not the majority of the Soviet armored forces in 1941, and those they had were often misused. Just as in France in 1940 and Libya in 1941, when the expedient of bringing Luftwaffe anti-aircraft gun crews, with their Flak 18s, as with air supremacy achieved, they were fairly much out of a job, to work as improvised anti-tank gunners proved hugely effective against the French Char B1s and British Matildas, so much that a captured British officer complained it wasn't "cricket" to employ an anti-aircraft piece against a ground target, so, once the Soviet V-VS was rendered moot in '41, the Luftwaffe 88mm gun crews went to work against as improvised anti-tank battalions. Once intact (enough) T-34s were brought back to Germany for study, the WaffenAmt Pru6 was both amazed as some of the technical innovations, like the aluminum V12 diesel engine, but also the crudeness of the Soviet workmanship. Both Damilier-Benz and MAN went to work on a "copy", with the DB submittal more faithful to the T-34 in concept, even though it used the torsion-bar suspension instead of the Christie-type. It weighed "only" 35 tons, and with the original HL 210 engine, was still faster than the MAN proposal. However, it's profile looked too much like the T-34, giving huge concerns about battlefield recognition issues and "friendly fire", and its turret was considered to be too cramped for three crewmen. The MAN proposal was eight tons heavier, but its turret was considered to be better to work in, and it left open the possibility of upgunning to the KwK 36 or KwK 43. Hitler actually liked the DB design better, but the WaffenAmt and Panzerwaffe chose the MAN, which won out. Later, having been rushed to be used in "Citadel", with very disappointing results, Hitler referred to the Panther as "that clanking He177", referring to a likewise troubled bomber. Though most of the initial "teething troubles" were worked out, the Panther still had its "Achilles Heel" in a weak and break-down prone final drive which had originally been designed for the Mark IV and simply couldn't handle an AFV nearly twice in weight. The CONCEPT was good...it can well be said that the Panther was the grandfather of modern Western MBT designs, before the concept was realized, but it's mixed execution can be seen as an indication of the limits of what German industry, already strained by several years of war and manpower and material shortages, could either produce and/or MAINTAIN. One thing the Germans utterly failed to figure out was having a sufficient fleet of CEVs and ARVs; they had so few tanks for their needs overall that everything that clanked was to be fitted with armament. The majority of their losses of the "Big Cats" were operational, that is, breakdowns or simply running out of fuel, and even quite a few of them that were knocked out, but were quite repairable, had to be abandoned due to not having the means to tow them away.
I consider myself to be fairly informed on WWII armor combat but you helped further my knowledge a bit and you were able to break down a complex discussion into a digestible summary. Well said
That is very well said
The German Tank Museum in Munster has got a slightly different explanation. It also has an English channel with a special episode on the Panther. Long story short, politics and lobbyism played a role, too.
Well put old boy
I think Scnell Heinz wanted to have the Stug lll/IV as top mass production priority as it was quick to build and just as if not more effective than the Panzer MK IV ?
Had the Wespe come out sooner, I bet a battelion of Stug lll/IV's with a battelion of Wespe's could be considerable assault force ?
"T34 wasnt the first tank with sloped armor. Also, the Germans knew of sloped armor, but decided volumetrically it was undesirable."- to paraphrase The Chieftain.
yeah slopping armor on the t-34 was more of a Russian duck tape fix to making easy solutions work against better the engineering of the Germans and making it easier to produce which turned out to be the advantage it needed to win them the war
But he didn't say the T-34 was the first he only said it was a good feature.
@@w.s.soapcompany94 The point or the first responder being that it could be a good feature, but also had downsides. The T-34 is one of the most overrated tanks of WWII. Sloped armor made it harder to penetrate, but the same sloped armor made it very cramped and difficult to operate in a combat situation, leading to T-34s usually being destroyed by the much lighter Pz III.
@@paulpeterson4216 that is absolutely rubbish. The T34/76 completely out matched the Panzer III.
@@markfinlay422 The early T-34, which was present in large numbers and was encountered by the PzIII on day one of the war, was good on paper, but it had an extremely low rate of fire (2 rounds/minute in combat conditions), poor visibility, the commander was also the loader, which contributed to both of the above. OTOH, I am talking about the PzIII with the 50mm gun. A gun which was capable of defeating the T-34 armor in most cases, though from a distance, vs the frontal armor, it did not. The Russian radios sucked, when the tank actually had one. Finally, the early T-34 was mechanically very unreliable.
I am not saying this is like a Tiger vs a Grant, but in the field, the early T-34 was not a favorite to win vs. the PzIII. The T-34 had a lot of need for improvement; those improvements were eventually made. The 1942 T-34 vs a PzIII would be a different matchup.
The problem is that you are looking at the best tanks at the end of the war. Early on the British Matilda II and the German Panzer IV were excellent tanks.
The PzKpfw IV was excellent throughout. If a tank designed in 1937 is still 'mainstay' useful in 1945 (Ausf. J), you have a pretty decent tank.
@@biodidu25 In 1939 French tanks rolled into Germany, then, with no support, had to go back.
@@biodidu25 Correct.
Yep... Fact Boy out if his depth on this one I'm afraid!
True. And contrary to the stereotype, the Panzer IV was actually the work horse of the German army in World War Two, rather than the Tiger.
Hi, tank enthusiast here.
I don't fully understand the point of angling the sides. I have anywhere between 15-20 tanks in operation at any point in time, and frankly doing something like that would just decrease the amount of space my fish have to swim around and make cleaning the tanks significantly more difficult.
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie.
Yes some with bowl types excellent for viewing but awful when cleaning
😂😂👍
Actually it was a bad idea for exactly what you said. The soviets moved away from sloped side because it resulted in a smaller turret and less room in the body of the tank that could have been used for fuel and amunition.
@@loganholmberg2295 add to that the Germans were very well aware of angled armor prior to the war and didn't utilize it for exactly that reason.
Another requirement for the Sherman that wasn't as important to other tanks of WW II, it had to be light enough to be loaded/unload on ships to get to the fighting with current dockside equipment, since it needed to be brought over an ocean.
Exactly. The only thing the US failed on was the gun. I don’t understand why we didnt copy the Soviet anti-tank guns and install them on at least half the M4s. They could have reverse lend-leased them.
Apparently the Tankers like the gun, because it could fire a HE shell. The Chieftan has a video about the Sherman. Normally the Sherman, especially in the latter stages of the War in Europe wasn't goung to be facing Panzer IVs, Panthers, and Tigers. They were most likely be facing fixed positions like pillboxes and machine gun nests.
@@phildicks4721 The short 75mm also worked quite well against Panzer IV’s and while it couldn’t penetrate a Panther from the front, many American Commanders used the maneuverability of the Sherman to flank Panthers and knock them out. Couple that with air superiority so whenever a Tiger was encountered they could just bomb it, the Sherman was effective for what it was most likely to fight, and once the Easy 8 was available in large enough numbers, all complaints were pretty much met.
The Sherman was a superb weapon system. In particular the ability to deploy it successfully multiple environments. Critical to its effectiveness was the ease with which it could be repaired and got back into battle. This made it vastly superior as a weapon system to the German tanks
Size was also dictated by the need to transport them on American railroads.
Sloped armor and mass production weren't the only traits of the T-34. Never forget about the wide tracks, reducing ground pressure and vastly improving mobility in difficult terrain. A rather important trait to have in Russia.
Actually the 1st armor used on a tank came from France. It was the Schneider CA-1 FOR WW. Just sayin
The T-34 was a disaster. No communication. Turret moved by hand, ammunition had to be handed across the cabin, excessive engine wear.
@@thenevadadesertrat2713 russian production methods said that if the avrege life span of a tank is 6months dont put in a gun that will last two years
@@thenevadadesertrat2713 T-34 did had its issues, but it wasn’t all bad. Like for example its armor was quite impresive, the panzer 4 medium tank could barely scratch it and it gun was actually quite powerfull. Also it was stupidly cheap and fast to produce so I wouldn’t call it an actual disaster.
As well as cramped crew quarters, lack of ability to see the enemy, and lack of radios. And the breakdown rate was quite high.
I remember a funny comment
German Commander: “The Tiger tank can kill 12 Sherman’s on its own”
German Officer: “That’s the problem”
German Commander: “What problem?”
German Officer: “They brought 13”
How original.
Oh I thought it would be something like "Tiger tank can kill 500 Shermans..." "Yeah but they have 501 bla bla" by now
@@josh05683he literally said, “I remember a funny comment”.
this is literaly fake lol, this is something wehraboos say, soviets and americans knew tiger weak points, we saw this at several battles so stop with this fake myth
"I didn't choose the STuG life, the STuG life chose me."
The Stug isn't a tank. It was first an assult gun then later a tank killer.
You in the War Thunder Stug gang too, great let's go have some fun
@@MrJimmysjo correction assault and tank destroyer
Interestingly. Those StuGs in video (with swastika insignia) are not operated by German army 8:51 . Those are ones used by Finland in the continuation war.
@@esawiik6646 German-supplied Soumi-marked Stugs seem to have appeared in many clips & videos. So many, I'm beginning to think they were a bit of a showcase ploy. Anyone know how many were transferred into Finland?
Another tank not recognized was the Panzer 4. It was continuously upgraded during the war and was even used by some countries after ww2.
The pz4 is my favorite tank of all time. Yes the firefly was better but the fact the pz4 was fighting from day 1 until the end of the war and fairly long after. My favorite fact is that most of the “Tigers” killed on the western front were pz4s with the long 75.
I think people forget that early Pz. 4s had Infantry Support 75mms while later versions had the long 75mms, not as good as the Panther's long 75mm, but still good enough to kill a Sherman or T-34
This list is more of a top most know tanks of ww2. The panzer 4 chasis was amazing it served the entire war. And later on proved itself still as stugIV, jagdpanzerIV, ostwind, wirbelwind and brummbar. And according to wiki they cost 35'000$ compared to 26'000-86'000 for the t34 so the t34 wasnt cheaper and the stug was more than a match for a t34.
The sherman cost 60'000$. The tiger 70'000$. People always say the german tanks were too expensive and couldnt be produced in the same quantities. But the germans outproduced the brits despite naval blockades and bombing of their industry. Yes the soviets and american produce 50% more but in way better conditions.
@@bjornvermeulen2005 The Brits worked together with their allies unlike the Axis scum
Every country that used the panzer 4 lost their war. Just saying.
The panzer four could have been made larger with a bigger power plant, tack on some more armor and give it an 88 mm gun then they would have a tank much like a Tiger they could make in mass numbers. This would save drawing board time and working bugs out because they would already know it's limits and what works.
One thing often overlooked with the M4 Sherman is it’s modular design. The engine and transmission could be replaced in a matter of hours. While the Tiger and Panther required days. Mainly because the German tanks had to have the turret removed to do the same thing. So tun around time in the Repair areas was greatly reduced and was putting existing tanks back into battle quicker.
Great Point in their engineering - Assembly Line Concept. Defeated Germans & Japanese. Russians Mass Produced the T34. We, the Allies, Out Produced & Out Gunned the Enemy.
And it was also extremely good at everything that wasn't thick armor, biog gun and high speed. To put it simply there are soft and hard factors, hard factors are gun armor speed, while soft factors are everything else that lets you use the hard factors effectively. The sherman was amazing at the soft factors, meaning even though it had a worse gun it could use that gun much more efficiently, and the same with all the other things. This was the case with basically all the allied tanks, while the german tanks were good at hard factores but bad at soft factors, and the soviet tanks were bad at both.
Panther and Tiger crews preferred to have life saving stronger welded front glacis rather than a weaker bolted on transmission cover. Changing a transmission was not a common occurrence. If it needed a transmission change, well even a Sherman isn't going to get a transmission change and then go back into action on the same day.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yes but there are times between same day and the time it took for tigers and panthers, you do realise that?
americans got a massive hard on for modular shit lmfao. well, thats not a bad thing it just surprises me it goes that far back in our history.
I think it was Stephen Ambrose who recounted in one of his books an exchange between a German boy and an American soldier. As the boy watched American tanks streaming through his town in the closing days of the war, he bragged to the soldier that German tanks were better. The soldier replied, "Yeah, but where ARE the German tanks?"
The "quantity versus quality" argument was played in the real world in that war, especially when it came to their respective nation's view of tanks and AFVs. At least in that war, the quantity side of the argument won. Or as the Germans later often said, "We could destroy ten Shermans (or T34s) but the trouble is that there was always an eleventh one." Words to that effect, anyway. They were not without flaws, but the mainstays of the Allied war effort, the Shermans and T34s - ended up being "war-winning" weapons. As the Russians are fond of saying: "Quantity has a quality all its own."
@@GeorgiaBoy1961- But then after WWII the US military decided to go with quality, in everything from tanks to airplanes. What the Shermans experienced on the ground against the (mercifully few) Tigers, the P-51s experienced in the air against the (again mercifully few) Messerschmitt Me 262s. Having gotten a taste of technological inferiority, the US military decided not to gamble on winning just with production volume again. Since then, the US has for the most part at least matched every real and potential adversary in terms of weapon quality. But this lesson had already been learned, as the US military was developing its own improved tanks and jet aircraft to counter the German designs, but the war ended before the new designs could get much into action. Had the war for some reason dragged on into 1946, American P-80 Shooting Stars and Pershing tanks should have evened the terms considerably. But as 1943 marked the turning point, and 1944 saw an accelerating German collapse, an extended war didn't happen. Allied air supremacy was so complete by 1945 that German armor was getting to be helpless except when the weather was bad enough to ground Allied flights (which, admittedly, was fairly often in a European winter - but the weather had to clear eventually and German tanks - and as importantly, the fuel trucks - became targets again). A fighter-bomber firing off its salvo of HVARs had the hitting power of a Fletcher-class destroyer's broadside. Having air supremacy means you don't have to worry quite as much about your tanks being inferior, unless the enemy learns to control the weather. Also with the Allies generally advancing while the Germans were generally retreating, it was easier to collect and patch up the many knocked-out Shermans that were fixable. When the Germans had to abandon a tank, they had fewer chances to get it or some of its parts back in the fight.
Earlier in the war, the USN got some rude surprises on first encountering superior Japanese airplanes and torpedoes. But that was early enough in the war for the USA to then gain the technological upper hand against an enemy that failed to further improve its designs. Technology developed rapidly across the board during WWII but this had to be balanced with the need to build large volumes.
Germany lagged behind the Allies in other areas, such as codebreaking, heavy bombers, aircraft carriers, proximity-fused anti-aircraft shells (which could have tripled Allied bomber losses), etc. The lack of German heavy bombers is a big part of why the USSR could build so many tanks - they just had to move the factories a manageable distance behind the front, and the short-ranged Luftwaffe couldn't disrupt production. The vaunted Panzerfaust anti-tank weapon resulted from reverse-engineering a captured American bazooka, so Germany was playing catch-up too. German failure to keep up with Allied progress in anti-submarine warfare tipped the Battle of the Atlantic into the Allies' favor in 1943, a necessary condition for getting all that American war production onto the British Islands and then into the European continent. And let's not forget the German reliance on draft horses to the very end.
@@danielmocsny5066 - It is a generalization, but true enough none the less: The Anglo-American and Soviet allies won the war largely using 1930s technology, whereas Germany lost it fielding a relatively small number of weapons which would become common in the 1950s, as well as a larger amount of more-primitive tech. You summarized all of that pretty well.
If you read first-person accounts of what German POWs said about the Allies, in particular the Americans, they were astounded at how many vehicles we possessed. They may have built the autobahn, but they couldn't fill it up with cars and trucks. Had they won, maybe that would have happened, but instead it was the U.S. Only select units in the German army were mechanized/motorized; the rest relied upon horses - or boot leather - for transport and supply movement.
The Germans were also astounded at our - to their way of thinking -profligate use of HE - during operations. During the heaviest urban and house-to-house fighting towards the end of the war, U.S. doctrine was simply to reconnoiter-by-fire. The GIs would clear a structure, and then the engineers or the tanks would simply blast a hole through the adjacent wall or building, clear it, and rinse-lather-and-repeat. The Germans said "That's how a rich nation fights a war!"
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Except those numbers are false, and it never worked out that way for the Germans. Look at Aachen or Arracourt as examples of even the 75 armed M4s absolutely slapping Panthers.
@@Chopstorm. I've read that the short 75 was greatly improved - except in range - by better AP ammo.
The Sherman Firefly was what happened when the British army looked at the Sherman and said "This would be a pretty good tank if you put a real gun in it".
Yeah, but I would bet it was a Scotsman who really said this...
And the americans responded: "Well, a real gun can hit its target!" The 17 pdr was an awfully inaccurate gun, especially with the APDS round. And thanks to the cramped turret it had a very low rate of fire, and the crew fatigued much earlier then in any other Sherman variants. The american M1 76 mm were a bit less powerful, but it can reliably hit its target, and because it were mounted in a propriatery turret it had higher rate of fire too. All in all the american gun was much more efficient. The RO was able to fix the 17 pdr, but only after WWII, when the gun became obsolete. They used the 17 pdr in the Centurion, because they had no better at the time. When the 20 pdr equipped Mk.3 introduced ion 1948, they withdraw all of the 17 pdr equipped Mk.1 and 2 models from service immediately. Meanwhile the americans used the 76 mm Shermans in Korea (two years later...) with great efficiency.
The 17 pdr was a one trick pony. When it hit it hit hard. But it had rarely hit. The 77 mm derivative of the gun was a much better gun.
exactly what happened with the mustang once it was equipped with a RR merlin engine
I’ll keep decent HE with the 75mm
@@egyeneskifli7808 It was only inaccurate with the sabot round. Otherwise it was at least as accurate as the M3 gun and more effective in the anti tank role.
Our only surviving veteran in London Ontario is the one and only Holy Roller, a Sherman that went ashore on D-Day and fought all the way across Europe.
Sounds literally like a ww2 tank game american campaign
@@heheheha6942
Yeah, every American army, whether Brazilian, Canadian, or USian loved tanks.
@@waynesworldofsci-tech Didn't know that there was a London in Ontario.
@@something1600
Every British settled country has one. Popular name for some reason I couldn’t guess at! 😜😜😜
*I love the video, which was a UA-cam "short", from (I believe) "The History Of Everything Podcast", where he shows a bunch of different Sherman Tanks that the ALLIES used in WWII and saying "You want a mobile artillery tank?... There's a Sherman for that. You want a Tank Killer?... There's a Sherman for that. You want a direct infantry support 105mm Howitzer?... There's a Sherman for that."*
1:10 - Chapter 1 - The T34
3:55 - Chapter 2 - The tiger
7:15 - Chapter 3 - The stug III
9:55 - Chapter 4 - The M4 sherman
12:45 - Chapter 5 - The firefly
Thank you
where is the panther, the best tank of ww2
@@232beachroad panther was one of the worst
@@232beachroad What's next, Panther = MBT
The Panther had Poor Crew Ergonomics, reliability issues and just like the T-34, even with all the Upgrades the Cor issue of what made it a bad tank were still present.
@@panzerkamfwagon4ausfh464 Better than T-34
How could he leave out the awesome Bob Semple tank?
That should be in a mega projects video
He's covered it a few times on other channels , although not in depth.
@@Black-Sun_Kaiser He should be thoroughly covered in depth, with tons of concrete.
5 BEST tanks >.
also the Italian Tankette MBT ze TONK
Who else was expecting a World of Tanks sponsorship?
that game F'ing sux
@@knallpistolen Simon prefers Raid Shadow Legends
@@XSpImmaLion hehe
@@knallpistolen and yet we continue to play it...
@@fubar9629 yeah . .. . .. . .. 🤪
The British were absolutely NOT the only people to use the Firefly. The Polish (who... yes... were embedded in the British army at the time, but were still absolutely a Polish division) employed it to great effect during Operation Totalize in Caen, and I believe some Italian units were outfitted with it before the end of the war after Mussolini was overthrown, but even if not then, they did acquire a number of them for use post war. The 17 Pounder really was an outstanding piece of equipment.
Canadians used them as well.
Winston was head of the Royal Navy at the time in WW1. The Royal Navy was in charge of allocating all steel in general, and all armor plate steel in particular going to industry, so all needed approvals for getting "his" tank program up and running were "fast tracked" without delay.
I know right! It should come as no surprise, there were after all called 'Land Ships'. 'Tank' was a just a code name to keep them a secret, whist being developed.
What, no TOG II? Must be saving it for a video about the greatest tank ever...
You spelled Bob Semple wrong
It was a landship, not a tank :D
U play too much WOT mate 😂
i was thinking more kv2 but that works
Ah the HMS Tog II , I remember her well
The T34 was nowhere near the first tank to employ sloped armour. It had been a known art since the end of WWI.
?? He didn't say it was first. Just said it was a good feature.
WW I ended in 1916?😁
The idea of sloped armor goes back to medieval times.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 But tanks don't.
@ Alastair Archibald i know, but the idea does. Some castles had sloped edges to deflect cannonballs.
This list seems very subjective as you’re looking at this at the end of the war. The Matilda II and Churchill performed really well in the African front at the start of the war. The tiger and king tiger tanks also had so many issues that they were only good if you could actually get them to the battlefield. And t-34 had so many other good points like it wide tracks and suspension system (based on an American design)
But the t 34 had no internal communication, a very small fighting compartment, awful sights, and no crew visibility until the 85. The armor was almost useless as the spalling would just kill the crew even if a shell didn’t pen. The tracks during ww2 were fine but not good enough to save it on soft terrain, they did get improved after the war which is were the misinformation comes from. T34 should be put next to the panther not the Tiger Firefly and Stug
"WW II" includes late in the War. Change the question and you change the answer.
The photo at about 8:22 is one of the earlier versions of the StuG, armed with the shorter-barrel cannons. The original version and variants A-E used shorter barrel cannons, but variant F and G -- G being the one with the most production numbers -- had a notably longer barrel.
Someone needs to take a trip out to the Bovington Tank Museum for a team up.
Someone needs to go to Bovington to get the facts in this vid correct.
Or watch the videos by "The Chieftain" (Nicholas Moran).
Battle of the Beards, David vs Simon, With The Mighty Jingles as Referee.
And Bovington got the worlds only running Tiger VI, and I've seen the "Fury" that was the actual model/tank in the movie, at the Bovington Tank Museum as well
Not "someone", Lloyd aka Lindybeige!!
I think the Bradley fighting vehicle would be a good “Side Project”. The armored personnel carrier that generals wanted to be a tank that eventually carried fewer personnel than originally designed.
The movie about it is hilarious and enough to make you cry.
Didn't it end up destroying more enemy tanks then tanks did in one of the Gulf wars.
@@jrt818 According to one link from Globalsecurity. Technically it had the best luck as southern Iraq is largely flat, The downgraded T-72M crews were ill-equipped & not as well trained as their counterparts, and the TOW missile the M2 carried was good, even if outranged by M1A1's 120mm turret & earlier 105mm rifled variant of the L7 turret. But the M1A1 did most of the kills in events like Battle of 73 Easting and most of the tank kills in that were was plinking them from the air. While a marvelous IFV & best armed (outside of the newer BMP-T), it is resource & maintenance intensive, which is why few chose the Bradley & others chose other IFVs like the BTR-80, MOWAG Piranha variants, CV90 variants, or native designs.
Check out the truth about the pentagon wars. It isn't as true as you think
@@Kokoshi You know, it is also kind of underpowered relativly speaking, the Abrams ws apparently faster going in reverse.
Simon, you helped get me through one surgery and you are doing it again with a second one. Thank you for being there.
Very interesting, had never even heard of the Stug & Firefly. Came up against the T34 in Angola, but luckily for us they were very poorly crewed & maintained. Most of them were immobile & had been dug in to serve as additional artillery, & were easy to destroy 🙂
I like side projects because I don't always have time to listen to a whole biographics or geographics or anything more than a couple minutes, and these are perfect. Also, you should do a video on tanks from the pacific theater.
Thank you for including the Stug! It is very unappreciated and it is good to see it get a nod.
A great and valuable tracked vehicle but not a tank.
@@mcedd54it is a tank
@@chrishilton3626 What's the difference between a self propelled gun and a tank?
A tank has a turret capable of traversing both left and right, 360 degrees. A self propelled gun, i.e. the Stug, does not. There it is my friend. You can disagree until you're blue in the face but those are the facts.
@@mcedd54 The first tanks were ever basically assault guns tanks meant to assault trenches they only fired high explosive at first and they had their guns and sponsons. Whoever made that distinction you’ve just said Made it to simplify things for the armies there is actually no difference between them. Tanks are basically artillery on wheels or cannons on wheels which ever you prefer. You can disagree until you’re blue or red in the face but those are the facts
@@chrishilton3626 Feel better now?
After spending 22 active duty years in the US Army, all of it in armor, I believe I'm 'qualified' to know and understand what a tank is and is not. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, albeit aslant.
AMF
The t34 compared to the tiger shows one Thing: perfectionism ducks you up, while good enough will keep you going.
And 85% of all T-34s were destroyed by the end of the war. With out numbers it would of failed.
@@gravitatemortuus1080 mass doctrine us a funny business..
Unless you're at the Frontline of course..
Point is, if you have limited manpower, you try to build some Supertanks like the tiger.
Problem with that: you can't use it flexible. All that force in just one spot. And once your production lines get damaged, you get trouble with your complex maintenance...
While on the other hand, if you have "unlimited" manpower, you can build weaker, easier to produce tanks, and just throw them at the enemy.
The latter tactic proved to be more successful in WWII.
So yeah, it doesn't matter if 85% of your tanks get destroyed, as long as the remaining 15% accomplish their target.
Especially in a total war, where you have to push back a plundering army
Totally fair game for the Firefly to get its own entry. The British took a capable chassis with a gun incapable of holding its own against other tanks, and turned it into one hell of a fighting machine.
Putting a British engine into a rather underpowered American fighter to turn it into one hell of a fighting machine rings a bell...
M36 > Firefly at its intended task.
Yet the 75mm knocked out Panthers and Tigers using greater mobility to get shots at the 75% of the tank that was not heavily armored.
@@thomaslinton5765 The Germans were done in by their logistics, Period.
@@anthonydavella8350 Certainly their "Achilles Heel." Lack of access to alloying metals made their armor brittle. Lack of modern assembly-line production didn't help. Enemies with collective economic strength 6+ times that of the Axis was a pretty serious shortcoming.
Mate, love your videos, but definitely got some things wrong about the M4 Sherman and Firefly.
Absolutely! I'd love to see a video on the best tanks of the Cold War!
that is hard to do because the top tanks or any cold war era never faced off. So the only way is to take the paper stats and compare them, that is a bad way to compare any pieces of equipment especially military equipment.
@@richardmeyeroff7397 yes and no. Russian and American crews never stood off, but they (the tech) fought all the time in Korea, Vietnam, and around Israel.
I swear, space and the number of YT channels run by Simon just keep expanding.
Yet another note about the Sherman - it was lauded and admired for it's narrow profile and maneuverability which lent itself wonderfully to urban fighting - it could fit through narrow roads and alleys, allowing it to outflank German armor on a number of occasions.
And it was high so very visible also it did catch very fast fire, it was not one off the best tank, it was just average.
@@bigbadwolf6256 what? Sherman's had the about the smallest amount fires compared to the rest and was lessen further more when they added in wet racks and only 15% of Sherman tankers were killed the smallest out of the great powers. They were the best far superior than the T-34, Panther or Tiger as most the time they would break down before even reaching the front lines unlike the Sherman's.
Simon:
Sloped armor existed dates back to French WW1 tanks. The US pre-war M2 Medium had sloped armor.
The Tiger was designed to attack fortified positions, and create breakthroughs.
Sherman tank crews had the lowest casualty rate of WW2 tanks.
I would recommend talking to the_chieftain_WOT, a resident historian for Wargaming.
Using Wargaming as the basis for your tank-"knowledge" is by itself contradictory...
@@HerbertAckermans The Chieftan is fairly knowledgable though.
@@HerbertAckermans Not really.
Nickolas Moran aka "the Chieftain," the WG NA in-house historian, presents historical records from various archives, and history papers and books from respected historians in his various articles and videos.
He also does 3d imaging of AFVs for the art teams.
I haven't even played WoT since 2015.
@@dongiovanni4331 I know who "The Chieftain" is, yes, which doesn't really change much to be honest...
and brushing over all the countless who died inside t34s like it was a success? they eventually had to use literally anyone for tank crews, untrained 16 year olds etc, and they too died over and over, nothing successful in terms of efficiency, safety etc about that tank, we just threw HUMAN lives at the germans thats it, human lives inside tanks planes bunkers anything and everything
"It drove Hitler and his generals crazy." Isn´t that kind of redundant statement, at least first part."
I've always believed that any good dictionary that employs pictures to illustrate a word's meaning should drive home the meaning of "Insane" by placing a photo of Hitler and his inner circle (Goebbels, Goering, Himmler, Hess) next to the entry. (I'm not sure Speer and Donitz were as loony as the rest.) "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad," was costly in regard to that bunch! Stay safe, everyone.
It actually would had been a great intro talking about the T-34's speed as it was faster than any other tank designed during WW2 pretty much. But that wasn't even mentioned lol.
Hitler: hey stalin take this! *operation barbarrosa*
Stalin: hey hitler take this! T34s
Hitler: oh shit
@@MarkVrem Right, and the fact that its controls were designed for easy operation by men who might never have driven any motorized vehicle. I also wondered why he didn't mention "Tankograd," the city far removed from the battle fronts solely devoted to building them. I was amazed to find that the sloped armor and suspension of the T-34 was designed after American J. Walter Christie's M1929 tank, which had been rejected by the US Army.) The Russians imported the turretless tanks, described as "Farm Tractors!") Stay safe.
@@MarkVrem No, not really. The T-34 was quick but what you just said was wrong
The diagram of the Sherman was insightful; similar diagrams of the other tanks would be helpful, too, for comparison and contrast.
1:48 - the Tiger I was not a response to the T-34, but rather Combat experience against the French SOMUA S35 cavalry tank and Char B1 heavy tank, and the British Matilda II infantry tanks during the Battle of France in June 1940
Finally!!! A tank review that acknowledges that the Sherman was extremely good at other things than tank on tank combat!!!
The Sherman was designed from the outset as an infantry support machine. At the time of it's design, the large tank battle's were still in the future. Another thing people tend to forget about is that the US was separated from the major war zones by large oceans; that meant we had to be able to ship them to the front, because we couldn't drive them there. At the time, most port's around the world had cranes that tended to be around 30~35 tonnes capacity; that was the upper end weight that the Sherman had to be designed around, so that they could be unloaded at the other end of the voiage. The largest Panzers didn't, so the ~60+ ton weight of a King Tiger wasn't considered an issue by the brass; the troops in the field had a different opinion when it started raining.....
And it had to be just the right width to fit over the standard tread way and pontoon bridges.
Watch the Chieftan’s “5 Favourite Tanks” video on the Tank Museum channel.
Except the Sherman actually was good at tank on tank combat. It was only until it went up against the heavier Cats did the 75mm become a problem. But those engagements were few and far between. They didn’t even bring along Sherman 76s during the invasion of Normandy because they felt the 75mm was doing a great job a killing German tanks already, which it mostly was.
The concept of the tank as an infantry support weapon was an antiquated one. The Germans pioneered the idea of the tank as a weapon in itself, organized into armored divisions and which enabled them to defeat the French in a matter of weeks in 1939. The French actually had heavier and more tanks than the Germans but they were organized in an infantry support role which made them ineffective. German armored divisions simply bypassed and enveloped French infantry divisions which were left to whither on the vine as the panzers probed deep in their rear.
The Sherman was not a good tank killer and was outclassed by German armor but the advantage was gained in their sheer numbers and good logistics and combined arms operations. The Sherman should not be overrated.
Tankettes are an interesting (failed) concept. Despite being mostly replaced by armored cars, I think they deserve a video
I'd argue that they worked excellently for their designed terrain (mountains) and then had no way of competing with dedicated lowlands tanks. Although their legacy continued with the numerous reconaissance tanks such as the scorpion.
@@theta682pl and THERE we have a reason to give them a video.
Wiesels want a word (except in asymetric IED warfare)
@@Max-hw7xl A great attempt at imagineering a role for the concept. Still not really much of a success. The Bundeswehr have sort of found a use for them, but other than the US buying a few to test, no real interest elsewhere.
I sense "Girls Und Panzer - Ribbon Warrior" vibes right now.
Entertaining, informative and even-handed presentation! I have to say "Tanks a lot!"
One brilliant feature of the Sherman is that it was limited to 40 tons, and the width of standard railcars, because every port and every railroad everywhere on the planet at the time was equipped to handle that weight without modifications or upgrades. Tigers for example had to have the tracks removed to be loaded onto rail cars, then re-installed in forward positions to be deployed.
How dare you leave out the legendary Bob Semple tank. TRAGEDY! It did the job it was designed under budget to do, avert a Japanese invasion of New Zealand. It is a sad day when even the great Simon Whistler doesn't recognize The Room of tanks.
As much as I love the Firefly and as good as it was in the war, it did have its problems. For one, it wasn’t given the name “Firefly” for no reason. The 17pdr had a distinctively bright muzzle flash when the gun was fired and this caused 2 problems. The first one being it could be easily spotted by enemy tanks meaning the Firefly could not stay in one position for very long. The second issue being if any of the crew were to look at the muzzle flash directly it could possibly blind them. Another issue with the Firefly was the ammunition was so large that only 17 rounds were available to the loader while closed down, the rest of the ammo was stored where the loader couldn’t reach, so if the 17 rounds of ammo were used up the crew would need to move the ammo by taking it out of the tank via the co-drivers hatch and giving it to the loader to put in his ready rack
I've long tried to figure out if there is any connection between the British "pounder" gun sizes and mm Gun sizes. Just how large is a 17 pounder?
@@briankorbelik2873 76.2mm
And the gun kicked up so much dust that follow-up shots were delayed. "perfect"
Great show. Thank You!
The Tiger wasn‘t designed to primarily take on other tanks (although it did pretty well) - it was in development since 1937 as a breakthrough tank and was planned as a successor to the Panzer IV - but yeah things changed in the war
The Firefly had one flaw, common to all previous British tanks before it...no high explosive rounds for the gun. Previous British tanks had used a 6 pounder/57mm gun, and 2 pounder/40mm hun. Neither of which had high explosive shells. This made it difficult to deal with enemy anti tank guns, since the only weapon they had to deal with gun crews are the tank's machine guns...and those crees had gun shields to protect from that hazard
It also had a huge flaw in that there is not enough room for the crew and the sobot round was nitoriously inacurate. Have you seen the cheiftans vids?
A high explosive round was available in late 1944. I suspect it wasn't used much because it was inferior to the 75mm HE round used by the non-Firefly Shermans.
There was also a HE round produced for the 6-pdr. I don't know how widely it was used as it could only carry a small charge.
Didn't need it. Fireflies operated in a troop with 3 other regular Shermans or Cromwells.
A British tank troop from mid 1944 had an organic tank destroyer with them, the Firefly.
"Quantity is a quality...all on its own." I like that.
Yep it turns out most modern countries didn't learn that lesson since their current "Rolex watch" tanks require tons of maintenance.
It's a paraphrase.
I believe the original was, "Quantity has a quality all its own." - Josef Stalin.
@@anydaynow01 yup and fighter jets. A lot of military engineering seems more geared towards wealth creation than actual defense these days
especially if you don't give a fuck about the people operating it.
@@nyetzdyec3391 : Yes, he made it sound like he was the one that made up that saying.
Hey man love ur stuff, do one on the kv-2 and the Pershing/m48 Patton
Hi John from WI. This "Stug" tank in my opinion was probably one of the best Tanks for backing up the infantry in tight places. It was low to the ground and its barrel was short enough to be moved by the tank body in tight places. This Tank could move a building with a machine gun nest, out of the way.
The StuG wasn’t a tank. It was either an assault gun (more early war) or tank destroyer (more late war).
Canadians used the Firefly as well, to great effect.
The Canadians also created two variants of the Sherman of their own. These were called the Ram and Ram II. Around 2032 were built and saw service from 1941 to 1945
The existence of this video begs the creation "five of the worst ww2 tanks" Simon! From the legendary Bob Semple tank and the Covenanteer to horrendously bad Japanese tankettes. Please?
@yeoldebiggetee That’s another terrible ww2 tank too.
@@prussianhill HOW DARE YOU SAY THE BOB SEMPLE IS BAD
@Boba Fett I never said the Sherman was bad! The Sherman ranks well as a war-winning tank. Unlike, say, the Bob Semple tank.
Yes please!! More tank videos would be great, possibly cold war era tanks?
Honestly your videos are execellent. I find your other videos to be very accurate as well
The Firefly was used by the Canadians as well as the British - it was indeed a Canadian crewed Sherman firefly , that ended the career ( and life) of Panzer ace Michael Wittmann
And Simon, less then 2500 US tankers were KIA in the entirety of WW2, in all theatres combined.
The "Deathtrap Sherman" is a myth.
Well there weren't too many engagements like on the eastern front, plus the US would just call in the Army Air Force to take care of any really tough targets. The Sherman was know for be a deathtrap more so because it was powered by petrol instead of less combustible diesel.
@@anydaynow01
Everyone used gas except the Soviets.
Wasn't anymore likely to burn than any other gasoline powered tank.
Most of the fires were Ammunition once the wet storage was implemented it had a very low burn rate.
Only tank with a higher survival rate than the Sherman was the Churchill.
So not a death trap.
@@anydaynow01 So were German tanks
@@anydaynow01 i find it funny how sherman was known as a deathtrap.
The US did lose a lot of tanks, which is to be expected in a massive assault like in WW2. The amount of deaths were extremely low though. As said under 2500 (adjutant generals report of ww2 page 112 stated 1578 battle deaths (including died of wounds, excluding armor officers for all of WW2 in armored force) for over 4300 tanks lost (Zaloga, 2015). Less than 1 tanker for 2 destroyed tanks. Considering there is 5 tankers in a sherman that's a really good number. Not to mention that includes people shot while outside the tank at the time (for instance people on guard duty outside when a counterattack started).
The M4 was relatively safe, it had comparable burn rates initially to all other tanks (and the ammunition was the main source of the fires, not the fuel). When wet stowage was added it became one of the hardest tanks to set on fire. But anything will burn if you shoot it enough. Since you cannot recover a burned tank it makes sense to shoot a tank till it burns. So that the advancing army cannot recover their equipment.
Tommy cookers...that’s what the German tank personnel called the Sherman because they blew up real easy..I’d say that’s a death trap
As usual, excellent stuff! Thanks.
I do in joy all of the the programs you do nice one
There's a documentary series on Netflix (at least, in the US) called "Age of Tanks" that goes through basically all of existing tank history, especially their development.
really netflix for a history reference . lol no thanks
Mike Osgood it's not a Netflix documentary, it just happens to be on Netflix at the moment.
A great well done top five video, though I would have add a honourable mention or 6th (defeating the purpose of a top five) spot for the Panzer IV. Along side the StuG III, the Panzer IV severed throughout the war on both fronts and was the work horse of the the German armoured divisions, being reliable, cost effective, easy to produce (or easier then Tigers and Panthers) and was more than capable of taking on and equalizing the field against Allied Sherman’s, Cromwells, T-34s and KV-1s, especially after the Pz.IV was upgraded with the in 75mm Kwk 40/L43 in 1942 and later the 75mm KwK 40/L48 in 1943-44. Also the whole cheating with the StuG cause it’s not technically a true tank is just being overly nitpicky really, the definition of a tank is an armoured tracked vehicle being armed with a cannon and or machine guns, just cause it doesn’t have a turret doesn’t exclude from being a tank, the StuG is a tank, just a different class of tank. WW1 landships were tanks but they never had any turrets just for example.
Well I could argue all day long on this one. Does a SDKFZ 251/1 Half Track fit the definition of Tank? Or a British Lorry, because it's armored, tracked, and fitted with a machinegun? The definition of tank has evolved over time just as the tank itself has. Few people here are so limited in their knowledge as to rely upon a dictionary to discuss such things. The STUG II and IV, while solid vehicles, were not tanks and in fact, the early STUG IIIs weren't even suitable as tank destroyers as the 75mm L24 gun just didn't have the penetration for such work, but if that's all you got, then that's what you use. Craziest stories about Michael Wittman were when he commanded a STUG III on the Eastern Front, hunting T34s with it. Anyway, that's how I feel about it, and you are welcome to disagree.
@@piperp9535 two dictionary definition of a tank, one from Cambridge dictionary, a heavy armored or just armored fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track, a large military fighting vehicle designed to protect those inside it from attack, driven by wheels that turn inside moving metal belts. Every definition defines a tank as armoured and metal track military vehicle. The difference is in the class of tank, M5A1 Stuart light class tank, A27 Cromwell medium class tank, Tiger E heavy class tank, Stug III assault/tank destroyers class tank, StuH III assault class tank, SU-100 tank destroyers class tank, and so on.
@@thecanadiantankcommander8673 Yea yea I've heard it. And if you can't wrap your head around the difference between a simplistic dictionary definition and the definitions of professionals then you don't need to be having such conversations. If you go by those definitions then an M113 APC is a tank, are you going to stick by that? Are you? Now I'm really not trying to insult or attack you but you gotta get off this ridiculous idea because it doesn't stand up to any logic.
@@piperp9535 From what I looked up the M113 is stated to be class of light tank that was used in the roles of armored reconnaissance, personal carrier and infantry support. As for professionals , I am not sure who you are talking about yourself or the fella in this video (which from my understanding he is not or at least not professional historian on specific subjects) I would be going off the word of an actual professional tank historian such as tank Jesus himself David Fetcher. Which he has on multiple occasions stated on full tracked IFVs and APCs to be tanks.
@@thecanadiantankcommander8673 I didn't have to look up what an M113 is, they were in service when I was. I served as a 12F, Engineer Tracked Vehicle Crewman. That's the really funny thing about military historians, so few actually ever served themselves. I crewed the AVLB and M728 CEV if you want to look them up, they are both interesting vehicles. So what I meant by professionals is professional soldiers, not college boys who only read about the military and have never been in the military.
I have something for you to explore for yourself if you choose too. Image defining a tank not for it's features, but for it's purpose just like you would a school bus or fire truck. A tank was designed for a purpose despite it's features. That purpose changed slightly over the years, initially tanks were infantry support vehicles, their role was to support the infantry with direct fire suppressing enemy positions and destroying defensive hard points. But by WW2, the Germans and even a few others, they saw tanks as a tool for breaking through the enemy defensive lines, exploiting weakness, and penetrating into the rear areas cutting off lines of communications and supply. The tank changed around that purpose.
Now I'm arguing myself into a corner almost proving your point and you can claim victory if you wish, but many other armored vehicles were developed for special purposes over the years since WW1. I served as a crewman on two of them. Tanks are, by their purpose and design, offensive weapons. Non-turreted tanks for the most part, not offensive weapons and instead are defensive in nature. APCs are armored taxis, and IVFs are more like a cross between an APC and a WW1 era support vehicle for the infantry in their purpose, their role.
So this is why I have a hard time accepting the STUG, an Infantry Support vehicle by design and role, in a comparison of offensively designed and purposed tanks like T34s, Shermans, and Tigers. This history and reality is also why I am so dismissive of a simplistic "text book definition" which completely fails to address such information.
So I suppose, if the author wished to include and Assault Gun (STUG) in the lineup for best tank, then why not the Hummel, wasn't it one of, if not the most successful SPGs of the war? It's certainly artillery but it does fit the definition of Tank and has as much a place in this lineup as the STUG if the author is going to go there. I say the Hummel for expediency to make a point, there might be some other "tank" that should be on this list vehicles that just have to be armored, armed, and have tracks, if you see where I'm going. If the list is so inclusive, what are the metrics you use to measure them by?
Hey Simon great video, consider doing a vid on the massive WW1 French Tank the Char 2C. It was, in physical dimensions, the largest operational tank ever made.
Designed after the first world War 🌎
I'm a fan of the Tiger I. Most iconic tank ever imo. Enjoyed your vid, thanks.
Greets from the Netherlands 🌷, T.
I hate when they talk about mass production when it comes to best tanks as there are so many other factors going into it. For example. If you have a bigger population, I expect you to make more of them. If you have other nations produce and ship other important items for a war effort (trucks) that you can use more industrial capacity to build more tanks, I expect that you make more. If you have more raw materials of certain types, I expect you to make more tanks. The city I live in Canada had a factory that shipped hundreds of thousands of pick axes, shovels, gerry cans, canteens, pots, pans, cutlery, even buttons to the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union doesn't have too make all of those important little things for the war effort, they should produce more T-34's
They're not talking specifically about just the numbers produced as much as the ease of producing them.
It's not so much the mass production as it is the mass producibility. In other words, their simplicity.
A lot of that stuff got shipped to England to help in their war effort as well (even more in fact), though no one uses it as a stick to bash Britains contribution to the defeat of Hitler like they do with the Soviets.
@@limedickandrew6016 The problem is the 2 different extreme views: The USSR either won the war by themselves or were carried by the Western powers. The truth is much more nuanced.
@@howlingdin9332 Well, you could also argue that the other way round, i.e. the western powers won because they were carried by the Soviets. Would the western powers have won against a virtually intact Wehrmacht?
When you send all your males to war too
I mean, there’s also the other more heavily armored variants of the Sherman that saw high success. And the Sherman in its base form was generally dominant in the pacific where the US saw action long before they entered Europe.
Yes, and the decades of rehashing WWII kind of obscures just how short America's land war in northern Europe was. From D-Day to the German surrender was less than a year. So we're just seeing a snapshot of where the progress in tank designs happened to be. The USA was already developing heavier tanks such as the Pershing. Had the war dragged on into 1946, we'd probably be seeing UA-cam videos about how great the American super-tanks were. The USA did have its 90mm cannon-armed M36 tank destroyer in combat from October 1944. Its gun was powerful enough to destroy heavy German tanks from a distance, although German armor could win depending on the angle and location of a hit.
Another difficulty was the capacity of bridging equipment and so on. Tanks don't just magically appear on a battlefield. They need a long and complex logistics train to get them there and keep them fueled and repaired. Making your tanks heavier means you need stronger bridges and so on, so there are knock-on costs down the line. Maybe you are better off allocating your resources to build more fighter-bombers that can fly around and destroy even the ridiculously huge proposed German super-duper-tanks that would have made excellent bomb magnets.
@@danielmocsny5066 I agree, with the exception of us likely seeing more action from the Pershing, because while the war in Europe would have ended around when it had because any number of reasons, the reason the war would have been prolonged would have been because of the Pacific theater. With that said, I personally believe that the smaller profile of the Sherman would have been easily enough to overpower what limited armor the Japanese had at their disposal. Also, as far as I know, Pershings weren't fielded in the Pacific and only in Europe to counter the more advanced German armor which did pose a genuine threat to the Shermans as you said.
I also agree with the issue regarding bridging equipment imposing limitations on the fieldability of armored units. I think this would be another reason why the pershing would not be worth using in the Pacific where mobility proved to be essential. I would also argue that the nature of jungle/island warfare makes larger armored vehicles more of a liability than an asset.
Yup. The Marines/Soldiers were ecstatic when they heard one rolling in. The Japanese were always hard pressed to counter them. And the 75 HE did wonders
Tanks alot for making this video
One thing Simon should have pointed about the Sherman was it's size and weight was limited to be shippable by rail, and ships where it had to be able to loaded with available crains
Missed the Chieftain's episode.
BTW: the STUG killed more tanks than Panther and Tiger combined and AFAIK, some were still in use recently in the middle east!
That 75mm HE still does its job against infantry hiding in buildings...
On the whole, I agree with your choices. But I feel the inclusion of the Firefly, while undoubtedly a great tank, is only in there so we Brits can have a bit of representation :) Despite fielding the first tank in battle, our doctrine remained so far behind nearly every other nation for waaay too long. Personally, I would have included the M18 Hellcat, an extremely versatile and effective tank destroyer. Or possibly even the KV-1.
I'm of a similar view. I just sat down the other night and made my own list which was almost the same as I take the "What got the job done?" approach. The one he left out in my view was the Panzer IV as it served throughout the war for one thing, reliable enough and outside of numbers produced was at least on par with the T-34 and Sherman most of the time. I'd like to add another point for the Tiger I. It's psychological impact on the battlefield. Being so good it made allied soldiers more cautious and the Pz IV more effective as especially with the skirts and extra plates around the turret of the H model was often mistaken for a Tiger. So even when not present at all it had because of it's limited production numbers it made a difference.
I don't rate the M18 Hellcat as high as the M-10 Wolverine though as the Hellcat came around late while the M-10 was present much earlier and served well throughout the war. I really like your way of thinking though. Even if you are a Brit. ; )
@ Cenbyte: Regarding the M18 Hellcat, is there some reason you are leaving out the formidable Achilles and Archer TDs from the list? The M18 was the fastest tracked vehicle of the war, but it was not as formidably armed as either the M36 Jackson with its 90mm gun or the Achilles and Archer, each of which mounted the superb 17-pounder gun. The 76mm gun eventually ended up doing reasonably well, but not until suitably potent ammo was developed for it. When it was first fielded in France after Normandy, its performance was - shall we say - underwhelming. Hence General Eisenhower's statement, "Everyone told me that this gun was the wonder weapon of the war, and now I find out you can't knock out a thing with it!"
British troops who used the Achilles - theM10 up-gunned to the 17-pounder - liked how roomy the TD was and how automotively reliable, as well as its gun. The Archer was valued for being relatively compact and having a low silhouette, ideal complements to its flat-shooting high-velocity gun.
@@Bochi42 I agree, early in the Normandy invasion there were not Tigers in the American sector, the German heavy tank battalions were facing the British around Caan. But every tank the Americans fought against was called a Tiger.
British doctrine was good by mid 1944. The Firefly gave the British 1 organic tank destroyer in each troop of 4 tanks.
This was better than the American doctrine at the time.
Pretty good analysis. Thanks.
Thanks tonnes (pun intended 😉) for this video Mr. Whistler.
I don't know if you've covered this elsewhere, but I would like to see more about field and combat engineers in WW2.
Cheers,
George
P.S. In summer 1975 I received some basic training with the 2nd Field Engineers Regiment out of Fort York, Toronto. This ended with two weeks with the reg forces up in CFB Petawawa., including 3 days of war games.
The tiger was already in development, his task was not counter the t34, it was breakthrough. It was just that it was what the german had at the time
The Tiger wasn't all that much for breakthrough. As the Soviets noted, it had the frontal concentration of its armor, and other aspects of the tank strongly showed how it was designed as a tank destroyer, an indication of the path German tank design was taking.
@@revanofkorriban1505 The german design it as breakthrough vehicle, ua-cam.com/video/T0JF23VIimg/v-deo.html , en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I#Design_history
Lmao the firefly sounds like something Jeremy Clarkson would've come up with.
Except it worked.
13:25
"Sir! 17-pounder won't fit!"
**"Put it in side ways!"**
"The radio won't fit!"
**"Put a whole in the back and have it stick out the back!"**
"The engine's no good!"
**"Get four car engines and put 'em together!"**
Here in Kent we had a load of forts built to combat the French menace of Napoleon III in the 1860s. A well as the big artillery forts built hull down on hills they built infantry forts (redoubts) on flat land in the Thames Estuary. A couple of these forts were built near the village of Twydall. An infantry fort was a place for retreating infantry to gather and be reprovisioned and rearmed ready to stand and fight or withdraw. They were expected to come under fire from army artillery on land and naval artillery from ships. The Twydall Profile was developed defining the correct slope on the outer wall of an infantry fort to deflect enemy gun fire, bouncing cannon balls and shells over the top of the fort.
So the sloping fronts and sides used by the T34 had been developed over 70 years earlier by British infantry fort designers.
In their first meeting British Sherman Fireflies killed 2 King Tigers Outside Caen in Operation Goodwood..... So who is best tank now?
This is an example of a tank video made by someone who is not subscribed to The Chieftain...
.
...but really should be. This video cites (and propogates) way too many popular myths (especially Sherman crew casualties!). Nice to watch, but much too inaccurate.
It’s a lot closer than most at least. Doesn’t call the Sherman’s Ronson’s and gives credit to the 76 and why the Americans didn’t go in with them on D-Day.
Simon whistler is a trademark of shallow inaccurate history
@@Red-S-267 the Americans tried to go in with them on D-Day, but most of them sank in the rough seas.
@@shawnjohnson9763 they tried going in with DD tanks but those were armed with 75's not 76's.
American High Command most probably decided to leave the 76mm Shermans behind on D-Day because of logistical issues. If every tank and every ammo crate you get ashore work together you never have to worry about losing any given bit, you just steal it from or give it to the next guy down the beach. Plus they knew from North Africa that even the standard 75mm Sherman could knock out a Tiger at close range. And if there was anything Normandy was guaranteed to give you it was short range engagements.
American tank crews had the lowest casualties of any job in the war owning in large part to the Sherman design of a bottom escape hatches and the us army mandating helmet usage
Compared to the British in the Sherman.... who wore berets and died from head wounds
@@Red-S-267 the British did look cool
I got a suggestion, an armored hat may have be a potentially good alternative to the helmet
While it does give you great protection from hitting your head hard into the turret, it's pretty big for its size and given that the inside is pretty cramped (especially if you're pretty big yourself). Perhaps install like some sort of protection under the hat to provide the same thing, but smaller in size. That way not only it may look stylish, it's still practical enough to avoid death from turrets. The disadvantage tho is that it might not give you adequate protection against loose shrapnels (which helmets are designed to protect you from) and is probably expensive, since you may have some futuristic material for a much lighter headwear.
@@ElkaPME actually the tank helmet that the GIs used was almost like an old football helmet it worked good
@D L honestly most of the tank knock outs where do to concealed 8.8mm antitank guns mistakenly accredited too sittings of tigers and panthers. Even if the casualties where increasing which they where in 1944 that’s because the Germans where moving to a more defensive oriented strategy favoring antitank guns and assault tanks/tank destroyers like the STUG equipped with the 7.5mm. Many troops preferred the 75mm Sherman over the 76 because of its HE round which was good at taking out antitank emplacements and bunkers. Causality reports where compiled by the war department after the war and the US had the lowest tank casualties of any allied nation. Chieftain made a good video some months back on this.
Transmission and overall mechanical reliability was and is the key attribute; determining whether your crew moved on or became a targeted funeral vault.
This was the most Warthunder historian list I've ever sat through
The T-34 was a definite shock to the German tankers, and in fact, the reality with the failure of Operation Barbarossa the 3rd Reich is no longer able to bring its superioritfy of overwhelming firepower "Blitzkrieg" lightning war, lost its chance for a decisive and quick win. ---- Superb performance Mr. Simon Whistler, you are the best presenter I've seen. :-)
FWIW: Sloped armor was nowhere near a new innovation for armor. It was seen in WWI and there are loads of examples of it before the T-34.
If you bothered to listen closely, he never said it was a new innovation on the T-34. It was, however, a good idea. For the most part, the early German tanks didn't have sloped armor, at least not nearly to the extent of the T-34. You're right, sloped armor wasn't a new concept by the time the T-34 design. It does make me wonder though why the Germans didn't utilize it more before tanks like the Panther and King Tiger.
*edit* Just noticed some other comments about the Germans deciding sloped armor was undesirable because of the negative effect on volume. Eh, at least it's an explanation.
@@aethyr6776 I think the Soviets took it too far with the T-34.
Internal volume is actually incredibly important for crew survival if there is a penetrating strike. The T-34-85, despite the praise it received, had a horrible crew survival rate once penetrated (often nobody made it out) while the American M4 had a relatively high survival rate (Usually at least 3 people made it out). The difference was internal volume, armor that didn't spall as much, and less serious ammo detonation problems (often knocked out T-34s were missing turrets).
@@hypothalapotamus5293 another issue the soviet faced with their tanks was that they produced tanks faster than they could train tank crew... so they had a tank that was "good enouth" with crew that could barely drive and shoot effectively with it.... and still they won against the " superiour enemy"
@@Malkuth-Gaming TBH, that's more of a "don't declare war on the rest of the industrial world" sort of thing with the Germans.
@@hypothalapotamus5293 sloped too far? Well the fact that the Soviet Union won the Great Patriotic War would suggest that this wasn't such a problem.
Hi Simon. How about a top 10 of what killed the most tanks in WWII (to best estimate). ie Aircraft, Tank, Artillery, mortar, roadside bomb, anti-tank gun, etc.
Two fun facts:
The Tiger tank was one of the easiest tanks to operate: it utilized a steering wheel. It also featured both an electric and manual starting mechanism, with the electric start meant for emergency situations when the crew had to get moving fast.
The Firefly got its name from the intense muzzle flash of its gun. Gunners looking through the scope were ordered to close their eyes when firing at night to prevent being blinded by the flash from the cannon.
Easier when terrain was not too challenging or a normal bridge needed crossing.
I said earlier on some other video that the entire M1 Anrams from start to current gen could be a mega project if you include bits on use/battles. Do it Simon... you know you wanna see what the M1A2C is all about compared to that OG Abrams...
8:55 Finnish StuG III.
. . . tks for a great video . . . my dad was in the Dieppe Raid, Calgary tank division, and used a Churchill tank to take his target, the Casino . . . his tank (Beefy) was eventually abandoned back on shore when it ran out of petrol and ammunition . . . he and his crew had been told that the Churchill could take on the German Panzers of the time, and best them . . . I have always wondered if this was true . . .
Thank you documentary man.
As a point of interest several tanks made a brief appearance at the last few months of the war British (Centurion, Comet), USA Pershing, USSR IS-3. Of these the Centurion is probably the longest lasting. I spotted some converted to APCs in the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
Centurion never saw combat in WW II.
It would be interesting to see what this might state differently after watching The Chieftain (Nicolas Moran) youtube channel.
Great conclusions! I glad to hear someone not saying how bad the Tiger 1 was as I think it has become a trending rave of people who do not research the subject. Thank you much !!!
the firefly was also usually kept back to snipe by the unit commanders or setup on the flanks, and also the PZiv was good against t34
The more I learn about WWII tanks the more I appreciate the Sherman. To me it's the finest tank of WWII, hands down. Production, speed, maintenance, survivability, reliability, fuel economy advantages for me start to add up.
Yes, I too can appreciate an engineering design strategy that is utilitarian and well balanced. Sure, not flashy, but just like some humans there are those primarily focused on just getting the job done well. ✌
The criticism today mostly comes from the book written by the guy who had to clean the bodies out of the dead tanks. I’m sure he only saw the bad side of the M4. It proved to be the best thing our side had, especially in upgunned form.
I would like to see an episode on captured enemy vehicles (tanks, planes) that were put back into service by the other side.
Mark Felton has done several videos on just this topic.
Awesome video
Yes! Please, more tank content!
Lemme guess, Sherman/firefly, tiger I, StuG life, t-34, and idk something british
WOOOHOO, YEP I GOT EM RIGHT
while the StuG is always my favorite, it technically isn't a tank and their crews didn't wear panzer crew uniforms
StuG life🍻
Literally just watched. Your right lol.
@@corvuscorax8459 i honestly expected churchill or matilda or some other British thing and that he'd put firefly under sherman
Very good guess. As the Firefly is a British Sherman they took any excuse neccessary to include both separately.
Can't blame them though.
Although it would have been interesting whether they would have place Panther or Tiger II on the list. Both designs had troubles but were very good at their intended role.
@@davudlastname2545 Not sure if the position in the video is meant to be a ranking but Churchill and Matilda weren't really that amazing or impactful. They were a bit stuck in a WW1 mindset.
The T-34 also had independent suspension for every wheel. Giving it amazing maneuverability. They took it from an American who wasn't liked by politicians and hence refused to use his ideas.
You might want to have a gander at my video on the subject. The US removed Christie (the man) from the equation pretty quickly, but gave the suspension design a good run afterwards before deciding it wasn't for them. ua-cam.com/video/0APcEvupuiA/v-deo.html
@@TheChieftainsHatch fancy seeing you here
Russia used to buy and steal US technology before cold war hostility
@@destroyerarmor2846 Still does. As do we.
Actually the Americans were interested in it, but Christie was an asshole and that made it hard to work with him. And the Christie suspension was not that good because of the problems it caused.
Excellent Sir your the Lloyd Grossman of armour vehicle's
Well as you mentioned it at the end, M1 Abrams tank and it's variants would make a good mega project or side project.