Everyone forgets one big issue. The Sherman had to fight all over the world and the American logistics system couldn't transport a bigger and heavier tank. The Germans could build a tank and then put it on one rail car and have it at the front in less than two days. The Sherman got put on a rail car, had to be lifted into a boat, taken off the boat, put on a rail car, put in another boat and then put on another rail car.
@@brandonalsop1281 actually because of cargo lifting crane weight limits at US ports at the time it would be five vs zero. Don't forget, the Pershing had to be specially transported to Europe and could only really have that happen after we captured major port facilities on mainland Europe
And by the time it went into mass production.. it would be a huge problem switching over to a new design. To make a tank you need a foundry. So you'd probably have to do a major 'change over,' of the existing plant. To make an airplane, even the B-29 you basically need big enclosed spaces, a runway and rail transport. Ford set up a complete B24 plant in a year (Willow Run), no foundry. My aunt retired from the Detroit arsenal in about 1970, it had been in the same location since before the war, and during the war when she went to work there.
@@billballbuster7186WW2 history buffs far too often fixate on the stats of different tanks and proclaim something like the Tiger II as the best tank in WW2. In reality, the humble Sherman was reliable, easy to repair, and very easy to mass produce. Which are highly underrated qualities in a tank but ones that help win wars. Meanwhile the Tiger II often was taken out by allied airpower or either ran out gas or broken down for some other reason. It simply wasnt reliable and it was far too expensive to mass produce.
@@AquilaGuard This IWM video says the same thing in more detail. It was a good infantry support tank, but poor ammunition stowage made it a death trap. The IWM records quoting 60-80% of Shermans "cooked off" in ammunition fires, often trapping their crews. The Panther was an excellent all-round design. But the Tigers and Tiger IIs did have problems in mobility, battlefield recovery, fuel consumption and reliability, which are often overlooked.
@@billballbuster7186 The ammo stowage was more a matter of discipline than tank design. The Brits using the Sherman in North Africa were used to packing as much ammo in their tanks because resupply wasn't always reliable. So any penetrating hit was almost always lethal. Before wet stowage was introduced tank losses already fell dramatically when proper ammo storage was enforced. Wet stowage improved survivability even further, but saying it was the biggest difference is simply another Sherman myth.
On D-Day, the Sherwood Foresters Tank Regiment lost 13 tanks knocked out in the initial landing....by the end of the day 8 of them had been repaired (on the beach) and returned to service....that is a significant comparative advantage over German tanks.
And look at the tank on the thumbnail - the Canadian Sherman known as "Bomb", now preserved in Sherbrooke, Quebec. It fought from D-day all the way to VE-Day, from Normandy to Austria. With large supplies of spares on hand, the mechanics of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers, who owns the tank, were able to keep it in fighting shape during the European campaign.
For sure! One of the Germans heavy tank weakness was repair. Some German armor was so heavy that they had no recovery vehicle capable of towing them. If field repair was not possible, as it often was, the tank was abandoned and destroyed by the crew as they left.
Indeed, after a month of offensives the American armored divisions participating still had operational readiness rate of above 90%. Panthers were lucky to be above 25% after an offensive.
Exactly, the ability to repair tanks and other equipment was an often overlooked advantage of Allies over the German forces. Being on the defensive, German field repair vehicles, even if they were available and had fuel, rarely made it to the broken down tanks in the first place under Allied air attacks and rapid advance of Allied mechanized formations. Weights were mostly irrelevant regarding German tank recovery, broken down Panzer IV or even Kubelwagen was just likely to be abandoned and scuttled as a King Tiger, when getting to them was already difficult and risky at the first place.
@jamesguy What is your source for your 25% Panther figure? I have the operational rates from Tom Jentz and none of them are as low as 25%. Lets take the Ardennes offensive. Jentz gives a figure of 53% at the end of December 1944 and 44% in mid January 1945. This includes tanks inoperable due to combat damage. Source. Tiger I and II Combat Tactics by Thomas L Jentz. In that book on the Tiger he compares the operational rates with the Panther and Panzer IV.
Paraguay retired three Shermans from the Regimiento Escolta Presidencial (REP, "Presidential Escort Regiment") in 2018, which marked the end of service of the final Sherman tanks in use anywhere in the world.
One thing often not mentioned about the Sherman was crew survivability if penetrated. Of all the tanks of WW2 the Sherman had the highest crew survival chance. More tankers got out alive. Ergonomic, easy to open hatches made bailing out much easier.
Did you not hear the man say, according to IWM records 60-80% of Shermans "cooked off" meaning rapidly burned or exploded. Later he said many of the crews were killed. Or do you just hear what you want to hear?
That and the complainers were unaware of the shortcomings of their enemy’s vehicles. When you barely encounter Panthers or Tigers it is easy to buy the belief they are prefect tanks even when their crews are cursing the designers who made a tank where issuing a spare suspension was seen as the best solution to fixing its faults.
The Sherman also fought in forests, mountains, arctic, jungle, coral atolls, hills, built-up areas, and open country. It was designed to be easy to hoist aboard ship and to optimize space for shipment.
The Japanese tank was even more manageable... Notice how the Abrahams is nothing like the Sherman? Guess the US doesn't want to win any more wars? Since you keep insisting that a swarm of mediocre tanks is better than a more capable tank in smaller numbers. Ask Iraq how that worked out for them.
My dad drove Shermans, and his chief complaint was that because they were tall and hence carried a lot of weight high above the ground, traversing an incline was tricky, especially if the ground was soft.
Another thing to note that was important about the Sherman being lightweight was the fact that all the shermans were built in America and had to be shipped overseas. You could ship two or three Shermans for every tank that was the size of a Tiger and with as many Shermans that needed to be shipped overseas, this was crucial. Not only did we need to supply our own American army, we had to supply the Brits and the Soviets as well.
America HAD a heavy tank, one of the most powerful in the world at the time, the M6. But it was rejected for very much the reasons you said plus it had transmission problems.
Nicholas Moran (aka The Chieftain) says that "Five Sherman's to kill a cat" is a myth. An American tank platoon consisted of five tanks. So, yes, if there was one tiger or panther sighted, five Sherman tanks would be sent against it. That's just a reflection of the organization of US forces and shouldn't be interpreted to mean that one tiger or panther was worth five Shermans.
@@davidmeehan4486 Nickolas Moran is a WoT Influencer who says a lot of stuff, not all true. But then Moran didnt crew a Sherman so I prefer the accounts of those that did. "Five Shermans to kill a Tiger" was a popular GI comment in WW2, based on US tank losses.
The Sherman was a medium tank that was compared to German heavy tanks. A medium tank cannot compare with a heavy tank in armor and anti-armor firepower. But this focus distracts from the recognition that the Sherman was a medium tank that punched above its weight class. It wasn't a specialist, but a great jack of all trades.
But the Sherman was inferior even to the PZKPFW IV, which was also a medium tank. I don't blame the designers or the manufacturers for our lack of a good heavy tank until almost the end of the war. Armor doctrine was that tanks should not fight other tanks and rather assist the infantry as a sort of mobile armored artillery piece. Tank destroyers were to be used against tanks (which was another bad decision). The Sherman's 75mm main cannon was quite good as an artillery piece, with the low velocity meaning long barrel life- which, if used as an artillery piece, is a very good quality to have. But once we knew about the heavier German tanks, we should have pulled out all the stops to produce one in record time. We didn't because the highest-ranking generals of the armored forces and in the departments which approved designs said we didn't need one. The result was that many American (and Allied) tankers lost their lives when they brought a knife to a gun fight.
Unfortunately, the Americans had no tank to counter the German heavies. The British at least created the Firefly. Because the Sherman was the only tank the Americans had, it is inevitably compared to the Panther.
@@Mustapha1963my good sir, the Sherman WAS NOT INFERIOR to the Pz IV You’re actually insane if you think that, especially late war versions of both tanks the Sherman blows the Panzer IV out of the water M4A3 76 W Vs Panzer IV H Is not even a competition Wet ammo stowage, better gun, gyro stabilizer, survivability, logistics, two gun sights, training, armor etc is all superior on the late war Shermans
My father was a tank driver in Patton's 3rd Army. He started in North Africa and fought in every major battle except one. That was D-Day. He missed D-Day because he was unconscious in a hospital in England after getting blown out of a tank. Only he and the Captain, the commander, survived that hit. That was the 3rd tank he lost. When he woke up, the Captain came and got him out of the hospital and they went on to fight the Battle of the Bulge. The only time he ever saw Patton was on the way to Berlin before they were stopped so the Russians could take Berlin.
My grandads mate - a tanker - said to me (many years ago) that they switched to firing HE at range over 400yds as the AP would bounce off the big cats but the HE was create “a bloody mess”. This was in Italy. He’d also mentioned constantly passing burning/burnt out German panthers and sometimes a tiger and when they’d looked to see what killed it they found that it was usually abandoned and set on fire by its crew ie no holes in it or blown tracks.
They "said" that, huh. Yeah, BS. Funny how all these made up BS stories have Tigers and Panthers in them when those were RARE on the Western and Italian fronts. It is the internet, EVERY tanker faced off against Tigers and Panthers.
@@geordiedog1749 Great story. I’ve heard that a lot of Panthers were abandoned because they broke down. I think that the transmissions were a common failure point, under a lot of stress because of the sheer weight of the tank. Also heard that spare parts were in short supply. That, plus the difficulty of maintenance mentioned in this video, are probably why so many were abandoned.
@@clumsygarage1578Also very many ran out of fuel - the Germans built the thirstiest tanks, yet they were the ones with fuel shortages - one of the great strategic errors of elephantism.
@brakecompo2005 In practice, late war German tanks thanks to its long range weapons and heavy armor, plus defensive doctrine, meant they didn't need to move as much as shorter range high mobility Allied tanks and actually consumed less fuel as a result, not strategic error, it was just Germany still had way too less fuel compared to Allies.
One other item is that the Sherman would fit into the available landing craft for amphibious landings. The M-26 Pershing could only be landed at a port with a major crane facility doing the offloading.
It was standard combat doctrine to fire at an enemy tank until it caught fire. A tank that had been burnt out could not be repaired and returned to battle. Pre wet stowage Sherman fire rates were roughly the same as most tanks. A big factor was ammo storage in the turret or sponsons. Moving ammo to the floor improved survival, but slowed rate of fire- a trade off many tankers likely faced. The French armored regiments that used Postwar Panthers found the target acquisition maddeningly slow. Nick Moran gave an estimate of some 30 seconds before a target could be acquired and shot. Great video. Most conceptions people have of the subject are very basic charts that show gun size, armor thickness, and speed of tanks. Lesser known(and hard to qualify) components of tank design often carry more real world value.
Everyone in a Sherman had a rotating periscope, there was no rotating periscope in a panther. Only the commander had 360 degree vision, loader had one 90 degree fixed periscope, gunner could only see through the telescopic sight, there was no periscopic ambush sight like on a Sherman or an is-2, driver could only see directly forward and radio operator could only see through the mg sight. It was basically a coffin and if the commander wasn't sticking his head through the hatch all the time panther had no chance at all
Standard combat doctrine is to shoot at a tank till it catches fire. This is a common excuse put forward by the Sherman fanboy club puts forward. Tiger 222 at Stavelot it was hit multiple times and stopped moving/ shooting. So the Americans stopped shooting, the crew survived and escaped at night. Tiger 213 at La Gleize, a shot hit the gun barrel and the crew abandoned it, how come the Americans didn't keep shooting at it till it burned.
One of the finest tank designs in history imo, overall reliable, well built yet built in a truly meaningful quantity and saw wide service abroad - I think it easily competes with the T-34 in many of its praised aspects.
@@OscarOSullivan Don't forget about crew survivability, arguably its biggest strength. A knocked out Sherman usually didn't mean the entire crew and their experience were gone.
@@theregalproletariat T-34/76 had serious design and conceptual problems such as a 2 man turret, an ineffective electric traverse and the lack of a floor for the crew so they had to walk around as the electric traverse jolted the turret around. The so called Christie suspension springs narrowed the compartment of the already incredibly crowded T-34/76. To this we can add the lack of a viewing cuppola for situational awareness. -The Sherman had its springs inside the tracks which mean the crew had far more space. -Interestingly the torsion bar suspension used on the Panzer III and IV was regarded as a mistake foisted on the industry by German Army Ordinance and the VK20 (which was to replaced the Panzer IV) was to have leaf springs. The VK20 was only 10% heavier than Panzer IV so when the T-34 was encountered it was declared obsolete. -Panzer IV and III really were interim tanks, the Germans got stuck with them.
The Mopar engine was the best in that tank. My grandfather was a tank in WWII and Korea and said that when they went to the motor pool to get a new mount the Chrysler engine was the most durable and dependable. In Korea in the coldest cold they ever experienced the Chrysler engine would start and keep everyone warm and alive. When he finally retired from the Army he would only drive Chrysler/Mopar cars.
The most impressive feature of the Sherman tank was the huge amount of variations and upgrades the tank could have. The tank had five different engine variants available to suit requirements of different armies. The design of the suspension allowed the tank to upgrade from VVSS to HVSS fairly easily which in turn allowed the tank to increase track width from 16" to 23". These improved the mobility of the tank substantially and of course the turret ring was large enough to accept turrets with 75mm gun, 76mm gun or 105mm howitzer. The British could even install their 17 pounder with some changes of their own to the tank. There were still many more variations without going into tank destroyers and self propelled guns which were based on the Sherman chassis.
@@lyndoncmp5751thats what I was going to say. Out of all the tanks Germany had, the Panzer 4 was the closest to a M4. Similar variants (AA, TD, flamethrower). But ultimately the Sherman had two advantages. Wet Stowage and spring assisted hatched.
@@re1010You forget two other big ones. Logistics and reliability. The Panzer IV was but the 7.5 cm KwK 40 made it front heavy which reduced its reliability. The Sherman didn’t have that issue with its guns. Also the parts were successfully standardized on the M4. It was once commented the only you never saw in an American factory was a vice because it wasn’t needed. It was needed in German factories as they built with a level of craftsmanship that was superfluous.
@lyndoncmp5751 on a sherman you jack the tank up. Then you unbolt the transmission cover and pull out the transmission. On a panzer 4 you first prepare a place for the crane. Then you take of the turret pull out the interior equipment and then take out the transmission through the turretring. 3-4 hours on the sherman. About 2 days for the panzer 4. Accessebility makes the sherman much faster in changing the transmission.
And we had the tractors to remove them from the battlefield and well-manned and equipped supply and repair depots to quickly get them back in action. The Germans - not so much!! Especially for the big tanks like the Tiger. There was no way to get it back for repair and too hard to fix if you could!! Great in theory, poor in practice. Although, arguably, the German high command classified it as a... can't remember the term... line breaker. A heavy tank used to produce breakthroughs. Not a main battel tank like the Panzer IV. It wasn't meant to fight 5:1 or more odds.
And that is why we won. The Sherman was the king of logistics. Most tanks these days follow its example of using the same basic tank for every armored vehicle role you could conceive of.
Stated by the same man who believed that the German Ardennes offensive was a feint, and had to be shown otherwise by a man who lacked any combat experience at all- namely, Eisenhower. While logistics is clearly a vial area of endeavor in either war or peace, it's not the end- all and the be- all. Superior logistical ability means little if an army lacks aerial superiority to effectively make use of it.
@ Aerial superiority is a part of logistics. It isn’t merely about having the supplies but the ability to get them where they need to go. Aerial superiority is a part of that with air cover particularly being vital for airdropping supplies as was done during the Siege of Bastogne. Not to mention logistics isn’t something that air superiority alone can make or break. It is a large combination of factors. After all air superiority itself requires logistics to achieve to begin with.
@@emberfist8347 Aerial superiority is 'not' a part of logistics. It is a state of affairs in a military conflict which is the product on many factors, of which good logistics is only one. IF aerial superiority and ground superiority were both automatically the result of logistical superiority, you might have a point, but they are not. The Germans held aerial superiority in Africa for over a year after Rommel arrived, and they were still unable to reach Alexandria and the Suez Canal. General British logistical superiority in the Mediterranean over the Axis in mid- 1941 was unable to save the British forces on Crete. My point is that logistics alone confers no automatic military success, and that on this basis, Bradley's statement is conditional- and is often widely taken out of context.
The Sherman could be the poster child for the maxim, "An okay solution applied immediately and vigorously is far better than a perfect solution ten minutes too late."
Shermans are amazing with their modularity for repairs with suspension bogies and various engines in the chain of supply. I'm designing a Lego Technic model of M4A1 for instruction right now and it's amazing to see scaled down bogies actually work.
Great analysis and presentation of the facts. Two items left out were crew survivability and ergonomics. Part of a weapons system's effectivness is how well the crew can fight it. Generally speaking, the Sherman was better laid out, roomier and more comfortable than most of the tanks it fought, making it easier for crews to maximize combat effectiveness. The tank was also a standout in terms of egress. If you had to bail, the Sherman made surviving that process more probable. According to statistics gathered during the war, and recently presented by Nick Moran (the Chieftain), US tank crews did not suffer inordinate casualties... despite the earlier "Ronson" era. Of course, nobody wants to be on the smelly end of the statistics stick but a Sherman crew was more likely than most to survive a penitration (even though crews did not know that at the time). Notably, some German and Russian tanks did not offer crews the opportunity to bend over and kiss their ass goodbye after being penetrated, let alone escape their tank before it brewed up.
Several key points in the design of the medium tank designs by the US was width to fit the Rail Gauge for transport by train. Weight within ship and dock cranes limits to load and unload ships along with overall length for shipboard stowage. The 75mm gun was based on the French 75mm quick firing gun with better HE charge and powder load along with better cartridge case due better more uniform steel.
So , literally.... like any other tank during and after ww2, or do you truly believe UK, USSR and Germany didnt put those limitations when designign tanks ?
@@DD-qw4fzthey didn’t. The Centurion (designed during the war entered service after it ended) had the requirements to fit on Queen Mary Trailers and British train cars dropped with the plan being to make new transportation vehicles for the tank. The Germans put heavy amount of rare metals like copper and nickel into their tanks like the Tiger even when they were short on those metals latter in the war leading to subpar armor that shattered against hits it was designed to resist. The German and Soviet heavy tanks were also designed without considering that it was too heavy for most bridges to support. Crane capacity was also never considered important for the European powers as they were mostly fighting on the mainland while the US was a continent away from the fighting. This is highlighted by how the US needed to remove the turret of a captured Tiger (which currently resides at the US Armor Museum in Fort Moore, GA) to get it off the ship. The Sherman could be lifted by crane fully assembled.
Ok, it's not a heavy tank like the Tiger but it is a medium one like both the Panzer IV and Panther. The Panther was only 15-20% more expensive to produce than the Panzer IV while the Tiger was significantly more costly and even more time-consuming to produce.
@@lyndoncmp5751And how Panthers were deployed vs Shermans? And who won in the end? It sounds bad until you take into account the production figures of both tanks and tactical doctrine.
I'm always puzzled when folks, apparently quite seriously, deride tanks like the Sherman for not measuring up to heavy tanks like the Tiger, which to my mind is like deriding a naval cruiser for not being a battleship. It has the same logic as claiming the Dodge Ram is a better city car than a Honda Civic because it has more room for groceries.
You should know that raw stats, stripped of all ergonomic changes, logistics and numbers: should be taken seriously. That's why America won in Europe, they had more battleships than the Germans. LOL.
A heap of people miss a heap of information. Context matters. Logistics and ergonomics matter. And in the end the Sherman and Tiger were built for very different roles. The Sherman was an MBT while the Tiger was designed and built as a breakthrough tank then used in the wrong role.
@@SlavicCelery while the other guy basically answered is, yes I know, but it was the central combat tank of the allied nations which is why I used the term. You are correct that it was a medium tank, with the engine power and design skill to build a true main battle tank made for a country's needs without trading armour or firepower would come later.
I wish I could directly refer to who said it, but I think there was a Tiger vs. Sherman review from a German field commander to his superiors: “One Tiger can handle 4 Shermans at a time. The only problem was that the Shermans attacked 5-6 at a time”.
Thank you for this. M4 tanks and their parts, petroleum products, and ammunition from US factories were shipped 3-5 thousand miles to the ETO/NA and 5-10,000 miles in the Pacific to be used by US, British, Australian, New Zealand, Soviet, Polish, French, et al forces speaking different languages with varying literacy. It was a constantly upgraded medium tank that was comparatively easy to maintain and repair. What's the old saying about logistics? Also, overwhelming artillery resources complements medium tank deployment. Tank destroyer doctrine returned less for the investment than hoped. Everyone was learning as they were fighting.
@@awf6554 Thanks for this, I just checked on line and only a small handful of M4s were delivered to Australian units for testing. The Australians in NA did use the M4 predecessor M3 Grant and also M3 Stuarts. With each of these types transported over the same distances.
There was a Sherman variant for everything too. Mine clearing, recovery vehicle, flamethrower tank, amphibious landing tank, setting fire to the state of Georgia, there’s a Sherman for everything
Focusing on the M4 catching fire misses the point that every tank used in WW II would have a rapid, violent deflagration if their ammunition was hit, and this was true whether the tank was a German Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV, a British Churchill, a Russian T-34 or IS-2. All of them had ammunition in ready racks that could catch the other ammunition on fire, destroying the tank and injuring or killing the crew. The M4 was just easier to egress, and that saved lots of tank crew lives. The later wet storage was a significant crew safety enhancement that would nearly eliminate the danger of a chain reaction deflagration. The M4 wasn't the best tank in the war, but it was the best tank in sufficient numbers available to help the Allies win the war against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
A German veteran who was a tank gunner once explained where they would shoot T-34s. The best place to hit a T-34 was on the side underneath the turret, because the round would first penetrate the fuel tank which was located inside the crew compartment against the wall and then it would hit the ammo right behind the fuel tank. Basically if you hit the T-34 there the tank had a very high chance of suffering a catastrophic detonation.
I guess that the Sovjets using Diesel fuel was factor in their favour for crew survivability. I understand the logistical advantages of having tanks that use the same fuel as your other vehicles and your planes, but apart from that I think it is a really bad choice.
@libertycosworth8675 Different tanks were good at different things, so maybe there was no best tank. But, out of interest, which tank would you regard as the best tank of the war? Personally, I'd go for the Sherman, for all the reasons the video gives.
@@martijnb5887 Fuel choice was not a factor in whether tanks in WW II caught fire when penetrated. The propelant in the ammunition would ignite and cause a violent deflagration.
@@ImStillWoody ahem T-34? Better armor, better mobility, better design, etc, also mass produced. To call m4 ronson the best tank of ww2 is a bit rich :))
It's worth noting that the primary threat to American and Commonwealth tanks was the German antitank guns. The fast firing 75mm med velocity was absolutely beautiful for suppressing and destroying them. I interviewed an American tanker who said that when ambushed they would all just let fly in the general direction of the AT guns muzzle discharge and almost always kill it immediately with weight of fire.
I don't have time right now to watch this but my dad was with the Third Armored, and he told me the big advantage the Sherman had over the German tanks was the turret was electric powered and much faster than the hand crank turrets of the German tanks. The Sherman also had a gyro stabilizer and if the crew knew how to use it, they could fire pretty accurately when moving. If anyone reading this knew a tank gunner in the Third Armored with the last name Roselli, I have a great story for you!
Something to note is that the Sherman was far more adaptable than the US and UK armies seemed to realize. Yes, the Brits created the Firefly and the American Jumbo was heavily armored and the M4/105 had a short barreled 105mm howitzer, but later French and Israeli M4s sported 90mm and 105mm long and medium barreled tank guns. Israeli M4s successfully took on and killed more modern Soviet T-54s, T-55s and T-62s during the 1967 war.
As a former American tanker serving on M60A1's and early M1's, I used to question our use of the Sherman. The more I study it, the more sure I am that it was the right tank for the job at hand.
And obtw, the 75mm gun had a superior HE round whose bursting ability was equivalent to an 105mm howitzer, while still retaining the ability to penetrate medium armor at 1000 m and heavy armor at 400. 95% of M4 engagements were unarmored and lightly armored and the average tank v tank in europe was 400.
There weren’t a lot of German soldiers to talk about how the Sherman outclassed their panzer 4s and stugs because they’re all dead after the first time they ran into 5 shermans for every one of them, each sherman firing 3-4 times as many shells as them.
As per armor force doctrine the M43 was to engage enemy armor. The 75mm was chosen as it was as good as 57MM FOR penetration and far better against soft targets.
Sherman might not have been the best tank. But when you always have air supremacy, superior numbers in the field, and can fight on every battlefield, it doesn't need to be the best.
@@lyndoncmp5751It did Italy’s were made using outdated construction methods and were not made for fighting in the battlefields of World War II. The Japanese were so bad that machine gun fire could penetrate their armor and outside of the Panzer III and IV, the German designs were unreliable or under armed.
You gotta remember that the Sherman M4A4E8 was also used in the Korean war and did quite well against the T34/85s that North Koreans and Chinese was using.
The Sherman had to be shipped across an ocean, then it had to work with the spares and tools the crew had on the supply train. And - most importantly and rarely mentioned - it had to do all that while on the attack against prepared defences. In any war, the attacker generally has higher losses when the defender knows they are coming.
@onenote6619 Good point about the attacker usually taking more casualties than the defender. Just look at the casualty numbers from the current war in Ukraine.
How come the Germans had fewer losses when the were doing the attacking in France 1940, Barbarossa 1941, Case Blue 1942, various battles in North Africa (such as Gazala and Kasserine), Kharkov and Kursk 1943? Its a myth that the attackers lose the most men. The Americans Pacific Island campaign is another example of this myth. The defending Japanese lost far more men.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If the attacker outmanoeuvres the defender or has an overwhelming firepower advantage, they can take less casualties. But, without that, the attacker tends to take a lot more casualties.
@@tawektawek3838 Pretty much exactly that. Blitzkrieg warfare came as a surprise in the first half of the war, enabling the Axis to carry their attacks with relatively light losses. But that's not what was happening in Normandy and thereafter - attrition warfare against prepared defences.
also to take a page from the chieftain.... "oh bugger, the tank's on fire"; the sherman is one of the few tanks where it was easy to unload everyone in short order or an emergency. which would make it one of the top tanks i'd choose, if i had to choose to man a WWII tank.
The Sherman is a better tank than it's usually given credit for. On paper, it appears to suffer a lot against the German heavies, but not everything is easy to quantify on paper. Ergonomics, reliability, repairability, etc. etc. also matters a lot. And when you look at survival rates of the crews, and compare that to the survival rates for other tanks, it was an excellent combat vehicle. The Sherman was, like the T-34, an outstanding vehicle with which to assert numerical superiority. It's also worth noting that when the Sherman faced the T-34 -- often considered to be one of the best tanks of WWIIr -- in Korea, the Sherman did quite well.
@@flarvin8945 The difference is the TD's _only_ purpose was to destroy tanks, and as coachhannah said, in a reactionary defensive move to stop enemy tanks and tanks specifically from breaking through. M4s were ment to *be* that breakthrough for US forces, and so were intended to fight a large range of enemy forces, which yes, included tanks.
They start with myth no.1 again. The M4 was not desiged to fight other tanks. The 75mm was one of the best guns on a tank when the M4 entered combat. And plans to upgun were started immediately. It even says in the tanker manual that M4s can engage anything. What US doctrine held was that it was wastefull to hold large amounts of tanks in reserve to deal with enemy tank formations ( likely encountered when the nmy was counter attacking ). That job was to be delegated to cheaper, lighter and faster tank destroyers. Operational experience however proved that Halftracks with AT guns were too vulnerable. So in the end the lighter and cheaper didnt end up happening.
Wasn't that "tanks were not designed to fight another tanks, that's why there were tank destroyers" a bit disproven idea already? It was my understanding that the whole idea of tank destroyers in US military was to be a reaction to enemy armoured breaktroughs, hence them meant to be mostly defencive force? And that M4 was very much meant to be able fight other tanks as well
@@petesheppard1709 could be. Can't really say i'm an expert on this matter, but i'm fairly certain that starting from M3, which was an stopcap while waiting for M4 tanks were indeed intendes to be able to fight other tanks, and tank destroyers were just meant to be highly mobile defencive force to counter armoured attacks, not to supplement tanks. Chieftain has made few fairly well sourced (if i remember correctly) on this matter.
indeed. Common mistrope. All tanks where expected to run in and deal with armour. but was a main focus was on infantry with the ammo composition tending to be the majority HE.
It has always struck me that British and American pre-war tank doctrine, was that of a set-piece battle, depending greatly on the right tanks being in the right place at the right time. It also required the enemy forces to play ball by the same rules. A work friend of my Grandpa, called Kyral Gray who was a Russian who had fled to Britain in the 1930s, was a British Tank driver in a Sherman. He and his crew got brewed up out of one tank and headed back to the depot awaiting another tank. A super keen Officer, came running up to them and ordered them into another Sherman. They left the depot and went up the road suddenly coming face to face with a German tank. The German tank got the first shot off, smashing its way through the tank taking my Grandpa's friend's leg with it. He managed to bail out, and was more pissed off watching the German tank crew examining the tank and then pinching the Gucci Snap-On tool kit he had been issued with the tank.
The Sherman did have some advantages. It was easy to build- which was a good thing because it was so easy to knock out in combat. It was easy to operate, even for a country whose population was more familiar with motor vehicles than those of any other nation. It was easy to repair- which was a good thing, again, because it was so easy to knock out. As a German panzer commander said, " Each one of our (German) thanks is better than four of yours- but you always had five.".
The sherman faced the 88mm AA guns from the very beginning in North Africa. And soon they faced 7,5 cm KWK 40 weapons. So, I don't know what this guy thinks he is talking about. Also, the sherman 75 mm had a very effective WP round which isn't mentioned. The Soviets did like them as far as being used after a breakthrough by T34/JS tanks. They were comfortable and used as part of their Operation Art of War. basically deep penetrations after a breakthrough. My grandfather delivered them to the Soviets in WWII. They included a bottle of whisky in the breech.
This was very refreshing information. I have always loved the Sherman and heard some of those concerns most of my life. Thank you for explaining this clearly.
A big thing that's often overlooked with complaints about the Sherman (& T-34): With Tiger equivalents, the Allies don't win the war in Europe as comprehensively. Both Western & Eastern forces were able to advance & destroy their German counterparts exclusively because of the ability of the medium tanks to keep pressing & keep moving forwards. The Tigers & Panthers were so heavy & unreliable & lacking in maneuverability, they were always destined to be mobile defensive units at best...their early successes were accomplished with light & medium tanks, & would've never been possible had the heavies been pushed into service. If everyone had stuck with their Pershings & KV-1s & IS-2s & Tigers & Panthers, the fronts would've moved inexorably slower, especially since the Allies would've had MUCH fewer tanks on both fronts. Even if the Allies still advanced, they wouldn't have cut off & destroyed any significant units nor had large advances that caused the collapse of fronts. The war would've dragged on much longer, likely leading to a "need" for nuclear weapons to be deployed.
As Thomas A. Callaghan said, "Quantity has a quality all of it's own" (no, it wasn't Stalin). Wars are won with logistics and, in modern wars, that means the ability to repair and return materiel to the battlefield.
Well done. An unsung hero for sure. I can only add that the Firefly’s 17 pounder limited gun depression. Also it was decided to stick with the Sherman as it was logistically possible to maintain numbers in terms of shipping across the Atlantic and commonality in the field.
Comparing to a Ford Escort is about right. I love Ford Escorts, I'm not impressed by Ferraris or Tiger tanks. Sherman tanks and Ford Escorts weren't big but they were clever. Flail tanks, bridgelayers, DDs. Charging across Italy, travelling over a Bailey bridge in to Germany or dealing with bunkers in Burma or Okinawa. Got to hand it to those Yanks, they built a great tank. The Chieftain points out that the lifting eyes on the hull were the most essential part of the tank. They are why you see them everywhere.
For those who still think the Sherman tank was inferior: 1. In lend lease, we sent thousands of Shermans to the Russians. The Russians were so impressed that they used Shermans in elite Guards units. They could have given them T-34s but believed the Shermans, with their thinner armor, superior. The Sherman had so many good points. A working radio in each tank. Optics that allowed the Sherman tank a good chance of getting a hit with the first shot. Higher firing rate. Faster turret transverse rates. Wet stowage. 2. In the Korean war, going head to head with the T 34/85, the easy 8 Shermans could knock out 2.35 T-34s for every Sherman knocked out. The first point is most telling because the second part would be affected by factors like, who was on the defensive, the numbers, crew training, tactics, etc. The Sherman tank was just flat out better.
It's worth noting that the Soviets weren't too fond of the Sherman 75mm they received. They only really liked the Sherman 76mm they received in late 1944 and 1945. Of course by then German tanks were getting fewer and fewer in number.
The Sherman's intended role was to assist infantry in breaking hardpoints like pill boxes. Sherman was not designed to be a German tank fighter and most losses by Sherman's were to anti-tank missiles (panzerfaust). It saved the lives of many infantry soldiers. Add tanker crew losses were substantially lower than infantry losses.
Outside of North Africa it was almost non existent unless it was BRITISH tankers in an M4. US Army encountered Tigers on FOUR occasions on the Western Front and only two of those was tank vs tank. The fact is, US tank crews rarely encountered German tanks of ANY kind, much less Tigers. 3/4 of German armor was on the Eastern Front.
@@timothyhouse1622 i'd say the biggest reason the US barely faced tigers is because the majority of tiger vs sherman battles happened in the British sector of normandy. The German tanks would come from Northern France or Germany and on their path to Normandy was the British sector around Caen. German armor found it's way a lot less towards St.Lo and Cherbourgh where the Americans were. By the time the Americans had helped surround the Germans at the Falaise pocket, most German heavy armor was either knocked out or were falling back towards the Belgian border.
@ and still many German heavy tank battalions found themselves in western Europe. a few hundred Tigers, panthers, tiger 2s and king tigers were in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Those 15% of German forces in Western Europe were not equipped lightly. At the battle of Arnhem alone there were 30-45 Tiger 2s present. Which after the battle on october 7th were send to Aken which is again Western Europe. Of the 100 Ferdinads produced, 50 were lost at Kursk and the other 50 were sent to Italy. Almost all Jagdtigers produced were deployed on the Western Front. Michael Wittman and his unit famously were present in Normandy. 85% of the German army might have found themselves on the eastern front, but the Germans were still not shy of throwing a few hundred heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyed at the Western allies. It was also very common for German tank units to be redeployed to a different front after the unit was resupplied and re-equipped. Which means that the 85% is not super reliable as of those 85%, many had fought on both Western and Eastern front. And you need to check if that number of 85% is casualties or general deployment of the military. 85% being casualties is then also not reliable as Germans were far less keen to surrender to the Soviets than to the Western allies.
Loved the video! Other advantages for the Sherman: it's MUCH narrower than the heavy tanks of the Germans and even the Panzer IV, by over a foot. So it's much easier to drive around the narrow roads of towns and villages. That helped it show up places the Germans never expected. The rubber-lined tracks helped with durability and noise control, and others have mentioned the large, spring-loaded hatches that made bailing out MUCH easier and faster... interesting side-effect, more crews survived to complain that their tank was nocked out! The numbers advantage could mean one tank per 10-15 Allied troops, vs the Germans that might only have one per 100 or even 1000, depending on the front. Finally in WWII, about 90% of ammo carried was HE, indicating that most of the time, the tank was supporting infantry. Which it was excellent at!
Quantity is also quality. Americans produced about 50 thousand, Shermans alone in the years 1942-1945. About as many as the Germans produced ALL tanks and self-propelled guns in the years 1939-1945.
Just read a memoir by a British tank commander from World War II. There is only one mention of tank versus tank combat. Most of the time was spent supporting infantry with high explosive rounds. I may be wrong, but I thought that the 76 mm gun was actually 75 just designated 76 to avoid confusion over the ammunition. I also might be wrong, but I thought that the 76 mm gun on the easier it was capable of penetrating most German tank's frontal armour 'at battle ranges'. Which tended to be short-ish in western Europe.
12:51 You forget the effect on the tank crew of repeated shelling. Even without any of them penetrating,I wouldn’t want to be inside when they hit. Quantity has a quality all its own. A panther or tiger might be better one on one but that hardly ever happened. They hardly ever fought alone, at least at the beginning of the fight. The Tommy Cooker reputation was completely undeserved if you look at the casualty rates of Sherman crews. Even if the tank was made unserviceable, the crew was often back in the fight later that day or the next.
Some great points here and often missed by many who deride the M4 based on anecdote or opinion. A bit annoying to miss on the comparison things like the effective armour, being that the M4 had more on the front than the Panzer IV, and more on the sides too. Also missing optics, as the Germans had excellent telescopic sights but no situational/wide-angle sights, which made target spotting/recognition slower, coupled with that slow turret traverse
Wittman was sent to the arms of Herr Hitler by a Sherman. Properly handled Sherman's could deal with Tigers. Provided they saw the Tiger first. Which is why you have great emphasis on cooperation between Infantry, Artillery and Tanks.
Designs need to be judged based on how well the met their intended application. We don’t say a civic is a bad car because it’s bad off road. Great video!
The Chileans really like to hang onto their stuff because their defense budget is fairly small. The Chilean Air Force (FACH) was also one of the last operators of B-17's until the 1980's.
My late family accountant was a Korean War tanker. Served for two years and fought in a series of skirmishes and battles against the North Korean and Chinese. When he started training, they used Shermans to teach the basic concepts of crew positions, crew coordination, and even mechanical and electrical training. Initially there weren't enough Pershing's to send to Korea (Not a lot had been built) and those were mostly made late in the war and stationed in Europe as the Army had severely downsized due to budget cuts. To get Pershing's to Korea they didn't want to strip out units in Europe, so they took display tanks, training tanks, and a few in depot to overhaul and send to Korea. His first tank in Korea was a late war Sherman, but with an upgraded high velocity gun, some armor upgrades, and even better optics. He never engaged any T-34's in direct combat in his few months (he was mostly infantry support and ad hoc artillery), and they converted to Pershing's later. Finally in late 1951 they ran into several T-34/76's and T-34/85's. They lost several M26 Pershing's, but mostly due to mechanical issues and mines (but only one or two to Soviet T-34's). The North Koreans lost most of their tanks and couldn't recovered them. Americans and Brits always attempted to recover theirs for repair and capture any Soviet tanks for study. He noted that one serious weakness for the North Koreans was their lack of maintenance facilities or retrieval vehicles.
The Sherman was designed to be logistically easy and to do a good enough job; in this it did it very well. sure, a single Sherman up against a tiger,the Tigers going to win... but that's the thing: where you may be lucky find five tigers in a group at once, you're probably more likely find them being attacked by 15 Shermans at once.
Years ago I came across a figure of 4.3 Shermans = 1 Tiger. So, if you are outproducing Tigers 10,000 to 300 and you can put them in the field together, you will succeed, and you also don't have to retool your factories every few months with concomitant down time lowering production. Ideally you used tactics like you did against a pillbox - one or two in front while the others went down the sides and fired from the rear. And, having a a few thunderbolts around never hurt.
I think he still makes the common mistake of calling the Sherman an infantry support tank. If you look at the US army doctrinal manuals for infantry and armor the Sherman was designed to be a tank to exploit breakthroughs. If it had been an infantry support tank then all the infantry divisions would have had them assigned organically but they didn't. The US formed armored divisions where the tanks were in the majority and the armored infantry supported tanks.
@tedarcher9120 no they didn't. There were separate tank battalions that could be attached to infantry divisions for specific operations. Go look up the t/o&e's of US infantry divisions during WW2.
@@craigplatel813 yes those "separate" tank batallions were permanently attached to each division at the front, and could be used by division commander as he pleased. That's 70 shermans per each infantry division, way more than in Wehrmacht tank divisions. There were 70 separate tank batallions and only 45 armored tank batallions, so most shermans were used for infantry support
A Sherman on a standard British railway flatcar could fit through any railroad tunnel in England. It impressed the British Army that once unloaded it was driven off the docks. No assembly necessary. Same with American trucks.
Every single tank had a reputation of bursting into flames. It was the ammo. Once Sherman’s had wet storage, the tendency dropped the Sherman’s effective armor in the front was almost equal to a tiger
Keep in mind the vast majority of combat the Sherman’s would see in Western Europe was against infantry, something they were designed for. The average Sherman probably never encountered a Tiger or Panther.
Strangely or maybe not so strangely the handful of times the Germans had built up a significant force of heavy tanks for an attack their combat record was pretty underwhelming. Look at Kursk, Mortain, the Battle of the Bulge as examples.
@@MichalKaczorowski The British actually faced quite a few King tigers around Arnhem. 15 were located above the Rhein river around Arnhem itself. 1 was knocked out by British para's and 2 were immobilized and recovered after the battle. South of Arnhem near the town of Elst were another 15 King tigers. 506th panzer battalion was very keen on not losing them though and used them in small amounts. On october 1st 1944, 8 of these Tiger 2s South of Arnhem were knocked out. 4 could be recovered. So the British knocked out 5 king tigers and made sure 6 needed repairs which meant the 506th panzer battalion lost 1/3 of their King tigers. So in this case, a large number of Tiger 2s were deployed and were not super successful. The biggest reasons the king tigers weren't successful though wasn't because of combat, but because of rookie crews and the unfavourable terrain and small roads.
The Germans used at least 150 King Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge. But they were too heavy for many bridges, almost all were destroyed or abandoned.
I often hear on these tank channels that the Mark IV was an infantry support tank. I read somewhere the Mark IV was meant to protect their MBT at the time the Mark III FROM infantry. Supporting Infantry was the Stug's job, in fact Panzers seldom supported the troopen because it was so costly in tanks, and they had so few. Comments please. Also, it's like we had intel on the Mark IV when designing the Sherman, look at the stats: Mark IV Sherman 24 tons 32 tons short barrel 75 medium length 75 Plate armor cast armor, Army Ordinance thought cast was better, but they were wrong vertical armor sloped armor (in front) in fact the prototype had radically sloped front glancer 240 hp 400 hp bogey suspension better bogies
The 17 pdr was not so good when a high explosive round was needed, but that didn't matter, because the Firefly was teamed with 75 mm Shermans who could handle those targets. However when German heavies appeared, the Firefly was magnificent - as Wittmann discovered to his cost. A wonderful example of a British and US WW2 technology combined.
Not just quantity, but it was a quality vehicle as well. Armor *good enough* for most threats. A gun *good enough* to handle most targets. Excellent ergonomics, excellent repairability, excellent standardization from the factory, and let’s not forget great crew survivability.
@Gillymonster18 all true, but in the end, it was the fact that American industry could churn out something like twenty Shermans for every tank of any sort that the Germans could which really helped tip the scales.
Great video, I really agree, people sleep on the Sherman because the Panther and Tiger are so big. Really nice to see some one include reliability in the triangle. Almost add another point on there on ease of production. If you think about it, that really is what set the Sherman apart from the rest. Also the T34, they had so many that Germany couldn't deal with them.
one important thing you omitted (this time) is that the allies needed to stuff the shermans onto ships in large numbers and sail them across the oceans. not so easy to do that with bigger tanks.
Absolutely great medium tank. In 1941. By 1943 only adequate. But you'd not get me in one. I just read a history of the Sherwood Foresters regiment by Tom Holland and the casualty rate was well over 100 percent. Yes, the Sherman in numbers was very effective, but that means nothing to the crewmen who face burning to death almost every single day when in combat.
Yes unlike our aircraft which were usually the equal or better than the Germans, it must have been a severe mental strain crewing an inferior tank to those of your enemy
Before wet stowage, you certainly wouldn't want to be in a Sherman. After wet stowage was implemented, the newer Sherman's had better crew survival rates than most, if not all of it's contemporaries in 1944. Panzer IV's however, were prone to fires almost as much as the early Shermans(80% burn rate to the Sherman's 82%), but with less average penetrations. (Panzer IV burned after an average of 1.5 penetrations, vs Sherman's 1.9) The Sherman's ergonomic hatches also made escaping easier than in other tanks, which reduced crew casualty rates and crewmen being burned alive. Personally, I wouldn't want to be a tanker in any WW2 era tank!
Everyone forgets one big issue. The Sherman had to fight all over the world and the American logistics system couldn't transport a bigger and heavier tank. The Germans could build a tank and then put it on one rail car and have it at the front in less than two days. The Sherman got put on a rail car, had to be lifted into a boat, taken off the boat, put on a rail car, put in another boat and then put on another rail car.
@@mikect500 really restricted thier width also if thinner you can fit 5 on a boat instead of 4 which is a huge difference
A champion of logistics and logical compromises for mass production and distribution. Well said.
@@brandonalsop1281 actually because of cargo lifting crane weight limits at US ports at the time it would be five vs zero. Don't forget, the Pershing had to be specially transported to Europe and could only really have that happen after we captured major port facilities on mainland Europe
And by the time it went into mass production.. it would be a huge problem switching over to a new design. To make a tank you need a foundry. So you'd probably have to do a major 'change over,' of the existing plant.
To make an airplane, even the B-29 you basically need big enclosed spaces, a runway and rail transport. Ford set up a complete B24 plant in a year (Willow Run), no foundry. My aunt retired from the Detroit arsenal in about 1970, it had been in the same location since before the war, and during the war when she went to work there.
Yeah, it's that old thing about professionals and logistics again. Gamers aren't aren't professionals!
I think the Chieftain said it best: "You can either have the best tank in your army, or have the tank that's actually there for you in battle"
Hmm I would have thought the best tank would be the one thats there for you?
@@billballbuster7186WW2 history buffs far too often fixate on the stats of different tanks and proclaim something like the Tiger II as the best tank in WW2. In reality, the humble Sherman was reliable, easy to repair, and very easy to mass produce. Which are highly underrated qualities in a tank but ones that help win wars. Meanwhile the Tiger II often was taken out by allied airpower or either ran out gas or broken down for some other reason. It simply wasnt reliable and it was far too expensive to mass produce.
@@AquilaGuard This IWM video says the same thing in more detail. It was a good infantry support tank, but poor ammunition stowage made it a death trap. The IWM records quoting 60-80% of Shermans "cooked off" in ammunition fires, often trapping their crews.
The Panther was an excellent all-round design. But the Tigers and Tiger IIs did have problems in mobility, battlefield recovery, fuel consumption and reliability, which are often overlooked.
@@billballbuster7186 they fixed it with the wet stowage
@@billballbuster7186 The ammo stowage was more a matter of discipline than tank design. The Brits using the Sherman in North Africa were used to packing as much ammo in their tanks because resupply wasn't always reliable. So any penetrating hit was almost always lethal. Before wet stowage was introduced tank losses already fell dramatically when proper ammo storage was enforced.
Wet stowage improved survivability even further, but saying it was the biggest difference is simply another Sherman myth.
On D-Day, the Sherwood Foresters Tank Regiment lost 13 tanks knocked out in the initial landing....by the end of the day 8 of them had been repaired (on the beach) and returned to service....that is a significant comparative advantage over German tanks.
And look at the tank on the thumbnail - the Canadian Sherman known as "Bomb", now preserved in Sherbrooke, Quebec. It fought from D-day all the way to VE-Day, from Normandy to Austria. With large supplies of spares on hand, the mechanics of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers, who owns the tank, were able to keep it in fighting shape during the European campaign.
For sure! One of the Germans heavy tank weakness was repair. Some German armor was so heavy that they had no recovery vehicle capable of towing them. If field repair was not possible, as it often was, the tank was abandoned and destroyed by the crew as they left.
Indeed, after a month of offensives the American armored divisions participating still had operational readiness rate of above 90%. Panthers were lucky to be above 25% after an offensive.
Exactly, the ability to repair tanks and other equipment was an often overlooked advantage of Allies over the German forces.
Being on the defensive, German field repair vehicles, even if they were available and had fuel, rarely made it to the broken down tanks in the first place under Allied air attacks and rapid advance of Allied mechanized formations. Weights were mostly irrelevant regarding German tank recovery, broken down Panzer IV or even Kubelwagen was just likely to be abandoned and scuttled as a King Tiger, when getting to them was already difficult and risky at the first place.
@jamesguy
What is your source for your 25% Panther figure?
I have the operational rates from Tom Jentz and none of them are as low as 25%.
Lets take the Ardennes offensive. Jentz gives a figure of 53% at the end of December 1944 and 44% in mid January 1945. This includes tanks inoperable due to combat damage.
Source. Tiger I and II Combat Tactics by Thomas L Jentz. In that book on the Tiger he compares the operational rates with the Panther and Panzer IV.
Paraguay retired three Shermans from the Regimiento Escolta Presidencial (REP, "Presidential Escort Regiment") in 2018, which marked the end of service of the final Sherman tanks in use anywhere in the world.
2022, actually. And various engineering, recovery, and other specialized vehicles based off of the Sherman that remain in use worldwide.
One thing often not mentioned about the Sherman was crew survivability if penetrated. Of all the tanks of WW2 the Sherman had the highest crew survival chance. More tankers got out alive. Ergonomic, easy to open hatches made bailing out much easier.
I think the Churchill had the armour and offroading advantage but was rarer and slower.
Indeed the T34 was at the opposite end of the spectrum sadly.
False, Churchill Mk VII had the highest crew survivability, Sherman was second.
Of all the Sherman tank crews in all the theaters it was deployed in,(including Russia) there were 1406 total fatalities. in all of WW2.
Did you not hear the man say, according to IWM records 60-80% of Shermans "cooked off" meaning rapidly burned or exploded. Later he said many of the crews were killed. Or do you just hear what you want to hear?
It has a bad reputation because so many people that operated it survived to complain about it and were allowed to do such.
That and the complainers were unaware of the shortcomings of their enemy’s vehicles. When you barely encounter Panthers or Tigers it is easy to buy the belief they are prefect tanks even when their crews are cursing the designers who made a tank where issuing a spare suspension was seen as the best solution to fixing its faults.
The Sherman also fought in forests, mountains, arctic, jungle, coral atolls, hills, built-up areas, and open country. It was designed to be easy to hoist aboard ship and to optimize space for shipment.
It’s why it was awesome.
The Japanese tank was even more manageable... Notice how the Abrahams is nothing like the Sherman? Guess the US doesn't want to win any more wars? Since you keep insisting that a swarm of mediocre tanks is better than a more capable tank in smaller numbers. Ask Iraq how that worked out for them.
My dad drove Shermans, and his chief complaint was that because they were tall and hence carried a lot of weight high above the ground, traversing an incline was tricky, especially if the ground was soft.
By that stage you would want a Churchill.
Another thing to note that was important about the Sherman being lightweight was the fact that all the shermans were built in America and had to be shipped overseas.
You could ship two or three Shermans for every tank that was the size of a Tiger and with as many Shermans that needed to be shipped overseas, this was crucial. Not only did we need to supply our own American army, we had to supply the Brits and the Soviets as well.
America HAD a heavy tank, one of the most powerful in the world at the time, the M6. But it was rejected for very much the reasons you said plus it had transmission problems.
Yes, but a Tiger or Panther was the equivalent of 5-6 Shermans in terms of survival.
Nicholas Moran (aka The Chieftain) says that "Five Sherman's to kill a cat" is a myth. An American tank platoon consisted of five tanks. So, yes, if there was one tiger or panther sighted, five Sherman tanks would be sent against it. That's just a reflection of the organization of US forces and shouldn't be interpreted to mean that one tiger or panther was worth five Shermans.
@@davidmeehan4486 Nickolas Moran is a WoT Influencer who says a lot of stuff, not all true. But then Moran didnt crew a Sherman so I prefer the accounts of those that did. "Five Shermans to kill a Tiger" was a popular GI comment in WW2, based on US tank losses.
@@billballbuster7186 His WoT business is only part of what he does. What else does he do, specifically for the US Army/National Guard?
The Sherman was a medium tank that was compared to German heavy tanks. A medium tank cannot compare with a heavy tank in armor and anti-armor firepower. But this focus distracts from the recognition that the Sherman was a medium tank that punched above its weight class. It wasn't a specialist, but a great jack of all trades.
Thanks Hollywood!
But the Sherman was inferior even to the PZKPFW IV, which was also a medium tank.
I don't blame the designers or the manufacturers for our lack of a good heavy tank until almost the end of the war. Armor doctrine was that tanks should not fight other tanks and rather assist the infantry as a sort of mobile armored artillery piece. Tank destroyers were to be used against tanks (which was another bad decision). The Sherman's 75mm main cannon was quite good as an artillery piece, with the low velocity meaning long barrel life- which, if used as an artillery piece, is a very good quality to have. But once we knew about the heavier German tanks, we should have pulled out all the stops to produce one in record time. We didn't because the highest-ranking generals of the armored forces and in the departments which approved designs said we didn't need one. The result was that many American (and Allied) tankers lost their lives when they brought a knife to a gun fight.
Unfortunately, the Americans had no tank to counter the German heavies. The British at least created the Firefly. Because the Sherman was the only tank the Americans had, it is inevitably compared to the Panther.
@@Mustapha1963my good sir, the Sherman WAS NOT INFERIOR to the Pz IV
You’re actually insane if you think that, especially late war versions of both tanks the Sherman blows the Panzer IV out of the water
M4A3 76 W Vs Panzer IV H Is not even a competition
Wet ammo stowage, better gun, gyro stabilizer, survivability, logistics, two gun sights, training, armor etc is all superior on the late war Shermans
@@elkrumb9159 I specifically said early-war Shermans, armed with the 75mm gun.
My father was a tank driver in Patton's 3rd Army. He started in North Africa and fought in every major battle except one. That was D-Day. He missed D-Day because he was unconscious in a hospital in England after getting blown out of a tank. Only he and the Captain, the commander, survived that hit. That was the 3rd tank he lost. When he woke up, the Captain came and got him out of the hospital and they went on to fight the Battle of the Bulge. The only time he ever saw Patton was on the way to Berlin before they were stopped so the Russians could take Berlin.
My grandads mate - a tanker - said to me (many years ago) that they switched to firing HE at range over 400yds as the AP would bounce off the big cats but the HE was create “a bloody mess”. This was in Italy. He’d also mentioned constantly passing burning/burnt out German panthers and sometimes a tiger and when they’d looked to see what killed it they found that it was usually abandoned and set on fire by its crew ie no holes in it or blown tracks.
They "said" that, huh. Yeah, BS. Funny how all these made up BS stories have Tigers and Panthers in them when those were RARE on the Western and Italian fronts. It is the internet, EVERY tanker faced off against Tigers and Panthers.
I have read of several Sherman vs large German tank engagements where white phosphorus shells were used to take out the German tank
@@geordiedog1749 Great story. I’ve heard that a lot of Panthers were abandoned because they broke down. I think that the transmissions were a common failure point, under a lot of stress because of the sheer weight of the tank. Also heard that spare parts were in short supply. That, plus the difficulty of maintenance mentioned in this video, are probably why so many were abandoned.
@@clumsygarage1578Also very many ran out of fuel - the Germans built the thirstiest tanks, yet they were the ones with fuel shortages - one of the great strategic errors of elephantism.
@brakecompo2005
In practice, late war German tanks thanks to its long range weapons and heavy armor, plus defensive doctrine, meant they didn't need to move as much as shorter range high mobility Allied tanks and actually consumed less fuel as a result, not strategic error, it was just Germany still had way too less fuel compared to Allies.
One other item is that the Sherman would fit into the available landing craft for amphibious landings. The M-26 Pershing could only be landed at a port with a major crane facility doing the offloading.
To be fair the Sherman also has to be loaded onto cranes for transport overseas. That is why you have the hooks on the hull.
It was standard combat doctrine to fire at an enemy tank until it caught fire. A tank that had been burnt out could not be repaired and returned to battle. Pre wet stowage Sherman fire rates were roughly the same as most tanks. A big factor was ammo storage in the turret or sponsons. Moving ammo to the floor improved survival, but slowed rate of fire- a trade off many tankers likely faced.
The French armored regiments that used Postwar Panthers found the target acquisition maddeningly slow. Nick Moran gave an estimate of some 30 seconds before a target could be acquired and shot.
Great video. Most conceptions people have of the subject are very basic charts that show gun size, armor thickness, and speed of tanks. Lesser known(and hard to qualify) components of tank design often carry more real world value.
Everyone in a Sherman had a rotating periscope, there was no rotating periscope in a panther. Only the commander had 360 degree vision, loader had one 90 degree fixed periscope, gunner could only see through the telescopic sight, there was no periscopic ambush sight like on a Sherman or an is-2, driver could only see directly forward and radio operator could only see through the mg sight. It was basically a coffin and if the commander wasn't sticking his head through the hatch all the time panther had no chance at all
Were did you read this gem? when it stopped moving you looked for another target was the rule.
@@billballbuster7186 if it stopped moving then it's probably aiming at something
Standard combat doctrine is to shoot at a tank till it catches fire.
This is a common excuse put forward by the Sherman fanboy club puts forward.
Tiger 222 at Stavelot it was hit multiple times and stopped moving/ shooting. So the Americans stopped shooting, the crew survived and escaped at night.
Tiger 213 at La Gleize, a shot hit the gun barrel and the crew abandoned it, how come the Americans didn't keep shooting at it till it burned.
30 seconds? That's a lifetime...
The reputation of the M4 Sherman has been alot better than the last couple of decades and it has been regarded as America's best tank of WW2.
One of the finest tank designs in history imo, overall reliable, well built yet built in a truly meaningful quantity and saw wide service abroad - I think it easily competes with the T-34 in many of its praised aspects.
@polygonalfortressCertainly built better than the T-34.
(Side effect of not using peasants who you threaten to shoot if they don't meet quota)
If not the best of world war two in terms of production numbers, armour, armaments, mobility, adaptability, maintainability, transportability.
@@OscarOSullivan Don't forget about crew survivability, arguably its biggest strength. A knocked out Sherman usually didn't mean the entire crew and their experience were gone.
@@theregalproletariat T-34/76 had serious design and conceptual problems such as a 2 man turret, an ineffective electric traverse and the lack of a floor for the crew so they had to walk around as the electric traverse jolted the turret around. The so called Christie suspension springs narrowed the compartment of the already incredibly crowded T-34/76. To this we can add the lack of a viewing cuppola for situational awareness.
-The Sherman had its springs inside the tracks which mean the crew had far more space.
-Interestingly the torsion bar suspension used on the Panzer III and IV was regarded as a mistake foisted on the industry by German Army Ordinance and the VK20 (which was to replaced the Panzer IV) was to have leaf springs. The VK20 was only 10% heavier than Panzer IV so when the T-34 was encountered it was declared obsolete.
-Panzer IV and III really were interim tanks, the Germans got stuck with them.
The Mopar engine was the best in that tank. My grandfather was a tank in WWII and Korea and said that when they went to the motor pool to get a new mount the Chrysler engine was the most durable and dependable. In Korea in the coldest cold they ever experienced the Chrysler engine would start and keep everyone warm and alive. When he finally retired from the Army he would only drive Chrysler/Mopar cars.
Engines...... multibank
I am personally more fond of the Ford GAA. Just because of its cool history and heritage to the excellent Merlin.
The most impressive feature of the Sherman tank was the huge amount of variations and upgrades the tank could have. The tank had five different engine variants available to suit requirements of different armies. The design of the suspension allowed the tank to upgrade from VVSS to HVSS fairly easily which in turn allowed the tank to increase track width from 16" to 23". These improved the mobility of the tank substantially and of course the turret ring was large enough to accept turrets with 75mm gun, 76mm gun or 105mm howitzer. The British could even install their 17 pounder with some changes of their own to the tank. There were still many more variations without going into tank destroyers and self propelled guns which were based on the Sherman chassis.
Just like the Panzer IV.
@@lyndoncmp5751thats what I was going to say.
Out of all the tanks Germany had, the Panzer 4 was the closest to a M4. Similar variants (AA, TD, flamethrower).
But ultimately the Sherman had two advantages. Wet Stowage and spring assisted hatched.
@@re1010You forget two other big ones. Logistics and reliability. The Panzer IV was but the 7.5 cm KwK 40 made it front heavy which reduced its reliability. The Sherman didn’t have that issue with its guns. Also the parts were successfully standardized on the M4. It was once commented the only you never saw in an American factory was a vice because it wasn’t needed. It was needed in German factories as they built with a level of craftsmanship that was superfluous.
It takes 3-4 hours to change the transmission on a sherman.
It takes 2 days on a panzer 4.
Myth. Even on a Panther or it takes 6 to 8 hours. No tank goes back into combat the same day a transmission is changed.
Source. THOMAS L JENTZ
@lyndoncmp5751 on a sherman you jack the tank up. Then you unbolt the transmission cover and pull out the transmission.
On a panzer 4 you first prepare a place for the crane. Then you take of the turret pull out the interior equipment and then take out the transmission through the turretring.
3-4 hours on the sherman.
About 2 days for the panzer 4.
Accessebility makes the sherman much faster in changing the transmission.
And we had the tractors to remove them from the battlefield and well-manned and equipped supply and repair depots to quickly get them back in action. The Germans - not so much!! Especially for the big tanks like the Tiger. There was no way to get it back for repair and too hard to fix if you could!! Great in theory, poor in practice. Although, arguably, the German high command classified it as a... can't remember the term... line breaker. A heavy tank used to produce breakthroughs. Not a main battel tank like the Panzer IV. It wasn't meant to fight 5:1 or more odds.
@@lyndoncmp5751wehraboo detected: opinion disregarded
“Amateurs study strategy, professionals study logistics.” -Omar Bradley
And that is why we won. The Sherman was the king of logistics. Most tanks these days follow its example of using the same basic tank for every armored vehicle role you could conceive of.
Stated by the same man who believed that the German Ardennes offensive was a feint, and had to be shown otherwise by a man who lacked any combat experience at all- namely, Eisenhower. While logistics is clearly a vial area of endeavor in either war or peace, it's not the end- all and the be- all. Superior logistical ability means little if an army lacks aerial superiority to effectively make use of it.
@ Aerial superiority is a part of logistics. It isn’t merely about having the supplies but the ability to get them where they need to go. Aerial superiority is a part of that with air cover particularly being vital for airdropping supplies as was done during the Siege of Bastogne. Not to mention logistics isn’t something that air superiority alone can make or break. It is a large combination of factors. After all air superiority itself requires logistics to achieve to begin with.
@@emberfist8347 Aerial superiority is 'not' a part of logistics. It is a state of affairs in a military conflict which is the product on many factors, of which good logistics is only one. IF aerial superiority and ground superiority were both automatically the result of logistical superiority, you might have a point, but they are not. The Germans held aerial superiority in Africa for over a year after Rommel arrived, and they were still unable to reach Alexandria and the Suez Canal. General British logistical superiority in the Mediterranean over the Axis in mid- 1941 was unable to save the British forces on Crete.
My point is that logistics alone confers no automatic military success, and that on this basis, Bradley's statement is conditional- and is often widely taken out of context.
The Sherman could be the poster child for the maxim, "An okay solution applied immediately and vigorously is far better than a perfect solution ten minutes too late."
I would say it is the poster child of open design architecture. The sheer amount of variants made using different guns and engines etc are impressive.
Sherman's size is optimized for loading on ships, being the max size most port cranes can lift
Shermans are amazing with their modularity for repairs with suspension bogies and various engines in the chain of supply.
I'm designing a Lego Technic model of M4A1 for instruction right now and it's amazing to see scaled down bogies actually work.
Great analysis and presentation of the facts. Two items left out were crew survivability and ergonomics. Part of a weapons system's effectivness is how well the crew can fight it. Generally speaking, the Sherman was better laid out, roomier and more comfortable than most of the tanks it fought, making it easier for crews to maximize combat effectiveness. The tank was also a standout in terms of egress. If you had to bail, the Sherman made surviving that process more probable. According to statistics gathered during the war, and recently presented by Nick Moran (the Chieftain), US tank crews did not suffer inordinate casualties... despite the earlier "Ronson" era. Of course, nobody wants to be on the smelly end of the statistics stick but a Sherman crew was more likely than most to survive a penitration (even though crews did not know that at the time). Notably, some German and Russian tanks did not offer crews the opportunity to bend over and kiss their ass goodbye after being penetrated, let alone escape their tank before it brewed up.
Several key points in the design of the medium tank designs by the US was width to fit the Rail Gauge for transport by train. Weight within ship and dock cranes limits to load and unload ships along with overall length for shipboard stowage. The 75mm gun was based on the French 75mm quick firing gun with better HE charge and powder load along with better cartridge case due better more uniform steel.
So , literally.... like any other tank during and after ww2, or do you truly believe UK, USSR and Germany didnt put those limitations when designign tanks ?
@@DD-qw4fzthey didn’t. The Centurion (designed during the war entered service after it ended) had the requirements to fit on Queen Mary Trailers and British train cars dropped with the plan being to make new transportation vehicles for the tank. The Germans put heavy amount of rare metals like copper and nickel into their tanks like the Tiger even when they were short on those metals latter in the war leading to subpar armor that shattered against hits it was designed to resist. The German and Soviet heavy tanks were also designed without considering that it was too heavy for most bridges to support. Crane capacity was also never considered important for the European powers as they were mostly fighting on the mainland while the US was a continent away from the fighting. This is highlighted by how the US needed to remove the turret of a captured Tiger (which currently resides at the US Armor Museum in Fort Moore, GA) to get it off the ship. The Sherman could be lifted by crane fully assembled.
Thankyou for pointing out that in combat effectiveness it's the Panzer IV and not the Panther or Tiger that you have to compare the Sherman to.👍
Yet statistically the Sherman outperformed the Panther in real world conditions
Ok, it's not a heavy tank like the Tiger but it is a medium one like both the Panzer IV and Panther. The Panther was only 15-20% more expensive to produce than the Panzer IV while the Tiger was significantly more costly and even more time-consuming to produce.
@josephahner3031
In the Ardennes, 5 Shermans were lost in combat for every 1 Panther.
@@lyndoncmp5751And how Panthers were deployed vs Shermans? And who won in the end? It sounds bad until you take into account the production figures of both tanks and tactical doctrine.
I'm always puzzled when folks, apparently quite seriously, deride tanks like the Sherman for not measuring up to heavy tanks like the Tiger, which to my mind is like deriding a naval cruiser for not being a battleship. It has the same logic as claiming the Dodge Ram is a better city car than a Honda Civic because it has more room for groceries.
You should know that raw stats, stripped of all ergonomic changes, logistics and numbers: should be taken seriously.
That's why America won in Europe, they had more battleships than the Germans. LOL.
A heap of people miss a heap of information. Context matters. Logistics and ergonomics matter. And in the end the Sherman and Tiger were built for very different roles. The Sherman was an MBT while the Tiger was designed and built as a breakthrough tank then used in the wrong role.
@@00yiggdrasill00 Medium Tank. MBTs didn't exist for quite a while.
@SlavicCelery
His point was that the Sherman was Americas main battle tank. While the terminology didn't exist, the concept did.
@@SlavicCelery while the other guy basically answered is, yes I know, but it was the central combat tank of the allied nations which is why I used the term. You are correct that it was a medium tank, with the engine power and design skill to build a true main battle tank made for a country's needs without trading armour or firepower would come later.
I wish I could directly refer to who said it, but I think there was a Tiger vs. Sherman review from a German field commander to his superiors: “One Tiger can handle 4 Shermans at a time. The only problem was that the Shermans attacked 5-6 at a time”.
Thank you for this. M4 tanks and their parts, petroleum products, and ammunition from US factories were shipped 3-5 thousand miles to the ETO/NA and 5-10,000 miles in the Pacific to be used by US, British, Australian, New Zealand, Soviet, Polish, French, et al forces speaking different languages with varying literacy. It was a constantly upgraded medium tank that was comparatively easy to maintain and repair. What's the old saying about logistics? Also, overwhelming artillery resources complements medium tank deployment. Tank destroyer doctrine returned less for the investment than hoped. Everyone was learning as they were fighting.
Australia didn't use Sherman's.
@@awf6554 Thanks for this, I just checked on line and only a small handful of M4s were delivered to Australian units for testing. The Australians in NA did use the M4 predecessor M3 Grant and also M3 Stuarts. With each of these types transported over the same distances.
There was a Sherman variant for everything too. Mine clearing, recovery vehicle, flamethrower tank, amphibious landing tank, setting fire to the state of Georgia, there’s a Sherman for everything
Focusing on the M4 catching fire misses the point that every tank used in WW II would have a rapid, violent deflagration if their ammunition was hit, and this was true whether the tank was a German Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV, a British Churchill, a Russian T-34 or IS-2. All of them had ammunition in ready racks that could catch the other ammunition on fire, destroying the tank and injuring or killing the crew. The M4 was just easier to egress, and that saved lots of tank crew lives. The later wet storage was a significant crew safety enhancement that would nearly eliminate the danger of a chain reaction deflagration. The M4 wasn't the best tank in the war, but it was the best tank in sufficient numbers available to help the Allies win the war against Germany, Italy, and Japan.
A German veteran who was a tank gunner once explained where they would shoot T-34s. The best place to hit a T-34 was on the side underneath the turret, because the round would first penetrate the fuel tank which was located inside the crew compartment against the wall and then it would hit the ammo right behind the fuel tank. Basically if you hit the T-34 there the tank had a very high chance of suffering a catastrophic detonation.
A tank you have is always superior to a tank that you don't have. Therefore the Sherman was the best tank of WW2.
I guess that the Sovjets using Diesel fuel was factor in their favour for crew survivability. I understand the logistical advantages of having tanks that use the same fuel as your other vehicles and your planes, but apart from that I think it is a really bad choice.
@libertycosworth8675
Different tanks were good at different things, so maybe there was no best tank. But, out of interest, which tank would you regard as the best tank of the war?
Personally, I'd go for the Sherman, for all the reasons the video gives.
@@martijnb5887 Fuel choice was not a factor in whether tanks in WW II caught fire when penetrated. The propelant in the ammunition would ignite and cause a violent deflagration.
In my opinion its the Best Tank of WW2, Its versatility gave it such an edge over every other tank during the war.
🤪
@@KilroyishereYTit being victorious at the end over 'alien technology' German tanks proves OP's statement
It's a very good compromise. It's not the strongest tank in the field, but it fills most roles quite well.
The only tank that served on virtually all fronts. From the North Africa desert to the Russian steppes and Pacific islands.
@@ImStillWoody ahem
T-34? Better armor, better mobility, better design, etc, also mass produced.
To call m4 ronson the best tank of ww2 is a bit rich :))
It's worth noting that the primary threat to American and Commonwealth tanks was the German antitank guns. The fast firing 75mm med velocity was absolutely beautiful for suppressing and destroying them. I interviewed an American tanker who said that when ambushed they would all just let fly in the general direction of the AT guns muzzle discharge and almost always kill it immediately with weight of fire.
I don't have time right now to watch this but my dad was with the Third Armored, and he told me the big advantage the Sherman had over the German tanks was the turret was electric powered and much faster than the hand crank turrets of the German tanks. The Sherman also had a gyro stabilizer and if the crew knew how to use it, they could fire pretty accurately when moving. If anyone reading this knew a tank gunner in the Third Armored with the last name Roselli, I have a great story for you!
It fit on Liberty and Victory ships.
Something to note is that the Sherman was far more adaptable than the US and UK armies seemed to realize. Yes, the Brits created the Firefly and the American Jumbo was heavily armored and the M4/105 had a short barreled 105mm howitzer, but later French and Israeli M4s sported 90mm and 105mm long and medium barreled tank guns. Israeli M4s successfully took on and killed more modern Soviet T-54s, T-55s and T-62s during the 1967 war.
As a former American tanker serving on M60A1's and early M1's, I used to question our use of the Sherman. The more I study it, the more sure I am that it was the right tank for the job at hand.
And obtw, the 75mm gun had a superior HE round whose bursting ability was equivalent to an 105mm howitzer, while still retaining the ability to penetrate medium armor at 1000 m and heavy armor at 400. 95% of M4 engagements were unarmored and lightly armored and the average tank v tank in europe was 400.
The 75mm HE shell from the Sherman was 2790 KJ. The 76mm HE shell was 1632 KJ. The 105mm howitzer shell was 9110 KJ
German 75mm shell from a panther was equal and sometimes better than Sherman. Both were very good though
@@tedarcher9120 The HE round from a 7.5 cm KwK 42 was 3150 KJ and was superior to both 75mm and 76mm Sherman HE shells
@@neilcameron7705 depends on which explosives were used
@@tedarcher9120 The data is based upon TNT Equivalent. There's also an additional column if they used comp B
There weren’t a lot of German soldiers to talk about how the Sherman outclassed their panzer 4s and stugs because they’re all dead after the first time they ran into 5 shermans for every one of them, each sherman firing 3-4 times as many shells as them.
As per armor force doctrine the M43 was to engage enemy armor. The 75mm was chosen as it was as good as 57MM FOR penetration and far better against soft targets.
Sherman might not have been the best tank. But when you always have air supremacy, superior numbers in the field, and can fight on every battlefield, it doesn't need to be the best.
And it still outperformed the majority of axis tanks
@solus48
No it didnt.
@declancotter722 Quantity has a quality all its own.
@@lyndoncmp5751It did Italy’s were made using outdated construction methods and were not made for fighting in the battlefields of World War II. The Japanese were so bad that machine gun fire could penetrate their armor and outside of the Panzer III and IV, the German designs were unreliable or under armed.
You gotta remember that the Sherman M4A4E8 was also used in the Korean war and did quite well against the T34/85s that North Koreans and Chinese was using.
The Sherman had to be shipped across an ocean, then it had to work with the spares and tools the crew had on the supply train. And - most importantly and rarely mentioned - it had to do all that while on the attack against prepared defences. In any war, the attacker generally has higher losses when the defender knows they are coming.
@onenote6619
Good point about the attacker usually taking more casualties than the defender. Just look at the casualty numbers from the current war in Ukraine.
How come the Germans had fewer losses when the were doing the attacking in France 1940, Barbarossa 1941, Case Blue 1942, various battles in North Africa (such as Gazala and Kasserine), Kharkov and Kursk 1943?
Its a myth that the attackers lose the most men. The Americans Pacific Island campaign is another example of this myth. The defending Japanese lost far more men.
@@lyndoncmp5751 If the attacker outmanoeuvres the defender or has an overwhelming firepower advantage, they can take less casualties. But, without that, the attacker tends to take a lot more casualties.
@@tawektawek3838 Pretty much exactly that. Blitzkrieg warfare came as a surprise in the first half of the war, enabling the Axis to carry their attacks with relatively light losses. But that's not what was happening in Normandy and thereafter - attrition warfare against prepared defences.
This was a key point since in many cases the tigers didn't have fuel to move around much and waited in a hardened position to attack from ambush.
no shot you actually called this video "The M4 Sherman's Secret Sauce" that's fantastic
One of the most interesting documentaries I've watched on the Sherman. Loved the comparisons.
also to take a page from the chieftain.... "oh bugger, the tank's on fire"; the sherman is one of the few tanks where it was easy to unload everyone in short order or an emergency. which would make it one of the top tanks i'd choose, if i had to choose to man a WWII tank.
The Sherman is a better tank than it's usually given credit for. On paper, it appears to suffer a lot against the German heavies, but not everything is easy to quantify on paper. Ergonomics, reliability, repairability, etc. etc. also matters a lot. And when you look at survival rates of the crews, and compare that to the survival rates for other tanks, it was an excellent combat vehicle. The Sherman was, like the T-34, an outstanding vehicle with which to assert numerical superiority. It's also worth noting that when the Sherman faced the T-34 -- often considered to be one of the best tanks of WWIIr -- in Korea, the Sherman did quite well.
Russian tankers definitely preferred the Sherman
Sherman was always intended to fight other tanks, but other things also. The Chieftain said there are sections of the manual for fighting other tanks.
Ah yes, the "Tank Destroyers were supposed to destroy tanks" myth
@@neilcameron7705- TDs were designed to stop breakthroughs. They ended up being used as needed.
@@neilcameron7705so a vehicle called a "tank destroyer," was not suppose to destroy tanks?
@@flarvin8945 The difference is the TD's _only_ purpose was to destroy tanks, and as coachhannah said, in a reactionary defensive move to stop enemy tanks and tanks specifically from breaking through. M4s were ment to *be* that breakthrough for US forces, and so were intended to fight a large range of enemy forces, which yes, included tanks.
@@chrisc1140 but TDs main purpose was to destroy armored vehicles, countering enemy armored breakthroughs. Which was not the purpose of the Sherman.
They start with myth no.1 again.
The M4 was not desiged to fight other tanks. The 75mm was one of the best guns on a tank when the M4 entered combat. And plans to upgun were started immediately.
It even says in the tanker manual that M4s can engage anything.
What US doctrine held was that it was wastefull to hold large amounts of tanks in reserve to deal with enemy tank formations ( likely encountered when the nmy was counter attacking ).
That job was to be delegated to cheaper, lighter and faster tank destroyers.
Operational experience however proved that Halftracks with AT guns were too vulnerable. So in the end the lighter and cheaper didnt end up happening.
Wasn't that "tanks were not designed to fight another tanks, that's why there were tank destroyers" a bit disproven idea already? It was my understanding that the whole idea of tank destroyers in US military was to be a reaction to enemy armoured breaktroughs, hence them meant to be mostly defencive force? And that M4 was very much meant to be able fight other tanks as well
Correct!
@@petesheppard1709 could be. Can't really say i'm an expert on this matter, but i'm fairly certain that starting from M3, which was an stopcap while waiting for M4 tanks were indeed intendes to be able to fight other tanks, and tank destroyers were just meant to be highly mobile defencive force to counter armoured attacks, not to supplement tanks.
Chieftain has made few fairly well sourced (if i remember correctly) on this matter.
indeed. Common mistrope. All tanks where expected to run in and deal with armour. but was a main focus was on infantry with the ammo composition tending to be the majority HE.
@@asserkortteenniemi4878 and aye as nick said. Stop gap.
Tank vs tank combat accounted for 10% of all combat for US tankers in WW2. TEN PERCENT.
It has always struck me that British and American pre-war tank doctrine, was that of a set-piece battle, depending greatly on the right tanks being in the right place at the right time. It also required the enemy forces to play ball by the same rules.
A work friend of my Grandpa, called Kyral Gray who was a Russian who had fled to Britain in the 1930s, was a British Tank driver in a Sherman. He and his crew got brewed up out of one tank and headed back to the depot awaiting another tank. A super keen Officer, came running up to them and ordered them into another Sherman. They left the depot and went up the road suddenly coming face to face with a German tank. The German tank got the first shot off, smashing its way through the tank taking my Grandpa's friend's leg with it. He managed to bail out, and was more pissed off watching the German tank crew examining the tank and then pinching the Gucci Snap-On tool kit he had been issued with the tank.
Great presentation. Thanks. And, thanks for the light show.
The Sherman did have some advantages. It was easy to build- which was a good thing because it was so easy to knock out in combat. It was easy to operate, even for a country whose population was more familiar with motor vehicles than those of any other nation. It was easy to repair- which was a good thing, again, because it was so easy to knock out. As a German panzer commander said, " Each one of our (German) thanks is better than four of yours- but you always had five.".
The sherman faced the 88mm AA guns from the very beginning in North Africa. And soon they faced 7,5 cm KWK 40 weapons. So, I don't know what this guy thinks he is talking about. Also, the sherman 75 mm had a very effective WP round which isn't mentioned. The Soviets did like them as far as being used after a breakthrough by T34/JS tanks. They were comfortable and used as part of their Operation Art of War. basically deep penetrations after a breakthrough. My grandfather delivered them to the Soviets in WWII. They included a bottle of whisky in the breech.
Yep, at which point it's a case of stay out of reach/sight and call in artillery.
88mm gun crews were very vulnerable to Artillery firing shrapnel.
This was a delightful watch! Thank you very much for creating it! 😊
This was very refreshing information. I have always loved the Sherman and heard some of those concerns most of my life. Thank you for explaining this clearly.
A big thing that's often overlooked with complaints about the Sherman (& T-34): With Tiger equivalents, the Allies don't win the war in Europe as comprehensively. Both Western & Eastern forces were able to advance & destroy their German counterparts exclusively because of the ability of the medium tanks to keep pressing & keep moving forwards. The Tigers & Panthers were so heavy & unreliable & lacking in maneuverability, they were always destined to be mobile defensive units at best...their early successes were accomplished with light & medium tanks, & would've never been possible had the heavies been pushed into service.
If everyone had stuck with their Pershings & KV-1s & IS-2s & Tigers & Panthers, the fronts would've moved inexorably slower, especially since the Allies would've had MUCH fewer tanks on both fronts. Even if the Allies still advanced, they wouldn't have cut off & destroyed any significant units nor had large advances that caused the collapse of fronts. The war would've dragged on much longer, likely leading to a "need" for nuclear weapons to be deployed.
As Thomas A. Callaghan said, "Quantity has a quality all of it's own" (no, it wasn't Stalin). Wars are won with logistics and, in modern wars, that means the ability to repair and return materiel to the battlefield.
Well done. An unsung hero for sure. I can only add that the Firefly’s 17 pounder limited gun depression. Also it was decided to stick with the Sherman as it was logistically possible to maintain numbers in terms of shipping across the Atlantic and commonality in the field.
Thank you. Excellent video analysis 👍
Really great video. Chock full of information and a fair treatment of the Sherman tank's strengths and weaknesses.
Comparing to a Ford Escort is about right. I love Ford Escorts, I'm not impressed by Ferraris or Tiger tanks. Sherman tanks and Ford Escorts weren't big but they were clever. Flail tanks, bridgelayers, DDs. Charging across Italy, travelling over a Bailey bridge in to Germany or dealing with bunkers in Burma or Okinawa. Got to hand it to those Yanks, they built a great tank. The Chieftain points out that the lifting eyes on the hull were the most essential part of the tank. They are why you see them everywhere.
What a brilliant presenter! Please ask this well-spoken gentleman to present many more IWM videos.
For those who still think the Sherman tank was inferior:
1. In lend lease, we sent thousands of Shermans to the Russians. The Russians were so impressed that they used Shermans in elite Guards units. They could have given them T-34s but believed the Shermans, with their thinner armor, superior. The Sherman had so many good points. A working radio in each tank. Optics that allowed the Sherman tank a good chance of getting a hit with the first shot. Higher firing rate. Faster turret transverse rates. Wet stowage.
2. In the Korean war, going head to head with the T 34/85, the easy 8 Shermans could knock out 2.35 T-34s for every Sherman knocked out.
The first point is most telling because the second part would be affected by factors like, who was on the defensive, the numbers, crew training, tactics, etc.
The Sherman tank was just flat out better.
It's worth noting that the Soviets weren't too fond of the Sherman 75mm they received. They only really liked the Sherman 76mm they received in late 1944 and 1945. Of course by then German tanks were getting fewer and fewer in number.
The Sherman's intended role was to assist infantry in breaking hardpoints like pill boxes.
Sherman was not designed to be a German tank fighter and most losses by Sherman's were to anti-tank missiles (panzerfaust).
It saved the lives of many infantry soldiers. Add tanker crew losses were substantially lower than infantry losses.
Nobody ever mentions how many times Shermans came up against Tigers. Hint: it wasn't many.
Outside of North Africa it was almost non existent unless it was BRITISH tankers in an M4. US Army encountered Tigers on FOUR occasions on the Western Front and only two of those was tank vs tank. The fact is, US tank crews rarely encountered German tanks of ANY kind, much less Tigers. 3/4 of German armor was on the Eastern Front.
@@timothyhouse1622 i'd say the biggest reason the US barely faced tigers is because the majority of tiger vs sherman battles happened in the British sector of normandy. The German tanks would come from Northern France or Germany and on their path to Normandy was the British sector around Caen. German armor found it's way a lot less towards St.Lo and Cherbourgh where the Americans were. By the time the Americans had helped surround the Germans at the Falaise pocket, most German heavy armor was either knocked out or were falling back towards the Belgian border.
@@frankpolly The biggest reason was likely that most Tigers - just like the bulk of German forces, up to 85%, IIRC - were on the Eastern front.
@ and still many German heavy tank battalions found themselves in western Europe. a few hundred Tigers, panthers, tiger 2s and king tigers were in Western Europe in 1944-1945. Those 15% of German forces in Western Europe were not equipped lightly. At the battle of Arnhem alone there were 30-45 Tiger 2s present. Which after the battle on october 7th were send to Aken which is again Western Europe. Of the 100 Ferdinads produced, 50 were lost at Kursk and the other 50 were sent to Italy. Almost all Jagdtigers produced were deployed on the Western Front. Michael Wittman and his unit famously were present in Normandy. 85% of the German army might have found themselves on the eastern front, but the Germans were still not shy of throwing a few hundred heavy tanks and heavy tank destroyed at the Western allies. It was also very common for German tank units to be redeployed to a different front after the unit was resupplied and re-equipped. Which means that the 85% is not super reliable as of those 85%, many had fought on both Western and Eastern front.
And you need to check if that number of 85% is casualties or general deployment of the military. 85% being casualties is then also not reliable as Germans were far less keen to surrender to the Soviets than to the Western allies.
@@timothyhouse1622 In WWII the largest tank battles for the US was Arracourt and the Battle of the Bulge.
Loved the video! Other advantages for the Sherman: it's MUCH narrower than the heavy tanks of the Germans and even the Panzer IV, by over a foot. So it's much easier to drive around the narrow roads of towns and villages. That helped it show up places the Germans never expected. The rubber-lined tracks helped with durability and noise control, and others have mentioned the large, spring-loaded hatches that made bailing out MUCH easier and faster... interesting side-effect, more crews survived to complain that their tank was nocked out! The numbers advantage could mean one tank per 10-15 Allied troops, vs the Germans that might only have one per 100 or even 1000, depending on the front. Finally in WWII, about 90% of ammo carried was HE, indicating that most of the time, the tank was supporting infantry. Which it was excellent at!
Quantity is also quality. Americans produced about 50 thousand, Shermans alone in the years 1942-1945. About as many as the Germans produced ALL tanks and self-propelled guns in the years 1939-1945.
And America wasn't the only allied armour producer. The Russians built more and the British/Canadians built about 50% of American production numbers.
@@lyndoncmp5751the soviets built more because the US stopped mass production
Just read a memoir by a British tank commander from World War II. There is only one mention of tank versus tank combat. Most of the time was spent supporting infantry with high explosive rounds.
I may be wrong, but I thought that the 76 mm gun was actually 75 just designated 76 to avoid confusion over the ammunition.
I also might be wrong, but I thought that the 76 mm gun on the easier it was capable of penetrating most German tank's frontal armour 'at battle ranges'. Which tended to be short-ish in western Europe.
12:51 You forget the effect on the tank crew of repeated shelling. Even without any of them penetrating,I wouldn’t want to be inside when they hit.
Quantity has a quality all its own. A panther or tiger might be better one on one but that hardly ever happened. They hardly ever fought alone, at least at the beginning of the fight.
The Tommy Cooker reputation was completely undeserved if you look at the casualty rates of Sherman crews. Even if the tank was made unserviceable, the crew was often back in the fight later that day or the next.
Some great points here and often missed by many who deride the M4 based on anecdote or opinion.
A bit annoying to miss on the comparison things like the effective armour, being that the M4 had more on the front than the Panzer IV, and more on the sides too.
Also missing optics, as the Germans had excellent telescopic sights but no situational/wide-angle sights, which made target spotting/recognition slower, coupled with that slow turret traverse
Wittman was sent to the arms of Herr Hitler by a Sherman.
Properly handled Sherman's could deal with Tigers. Provided they saw the Tiger first.
Which is why you have great emphasis on cooperation between Infantry, Artillery and Tanks.
Designs need to be judged based on how well the met their intended application. We don’t say a civic is a bad car because it’s bad off road. Great video!
The Chileans really like to hang onto their stuff because their defense budget is fairly small. The Chilean Air Force (FACH) was also one of the last operators of B-17's until the 1980's.
My late family accountant was a Korean War tanker. Served for two years and fought in a series of skirmishes and battles against the North Korean and Chinese. When he started training, they used Shermans to teach the basic concepts of crew positions, crew coordination, and even mechanical and electrical training. Initially there weren't enough Pershing's to send to Korea (Not a lot had been built) and those were mostly made late in the war and stationed in Europe as the Army had severely downsized due to budget cuts. To get Pershing's to Korea they didn't want to strip out units in Europe, so they took display tanks, training tanks, and a few in depot to overhaul and send to Korea. His first tank in Korea was a late war Sherman, but with an upgraded high velocity gun, some armor upgrades, and even better optics. He never engaged any T-34's in direct combat in his few months (he was mostly infantry support and ad hoc artillery), and they converted to Pershing's later. Finally in late 1951 they ran into several T-34/76's and T-34/85's. They lost several M26 Pershing's, but mostly due to mechanical issues and mines (but only one or two to Soviet T-34's). The North Koreans lost most of their tanks and couldn't recovered them. Americans and Brits always attempted to recover theirs for repair and capture any Soviet tanks for study. He noted that one serious weakness for the North Koreans was their lack of maintenance facilities or retrieval vehicles.
The Sherman was designed to be logistically easy and to do a good enough job; in this it did it very well.
sure, a single Sherman up against a tiger,the Tigers going to win... but that's the thing: where you may be lucky find five tigers in a group at once, you're probably more likely find them being attacked by 15 Shermans at once.
@@Shinzon23 plus if there's no Tiger, you have 15 Sherman's to wreck havoc on anything else with HE.
@@sctm81or if the Tiger has all of its drive wheels off to fix a shock absorber, it’s not going to win too many tank battles.
@sctm81 yup.
Years ago I came across a figure of 4.3 Shermans = 1 Tiger. So, if you are outproducing Tigers 10,000 to 300 and you can put them in the field together, you will succeed, and you also don't have to retool your factories every few months with concomitant down time lowering production. Ideally you used tactics like you did against a pillbox - one or two in front while the others went down the sides and fired from the rear. And, having a a few thunderbolts around never hurt.
13:31 that panther rotation speed was fixed with the panther G and improved on the A.
Another well presented informative video..... I've learnt a lot about a subject a knew little about.... Big thanks to IWM... Roger... Pembrokeshire
I think he still makes the common mistake of calling the Sherman an infantry support tank. If you look at the US army doctrinal manuals for infantry and armor the Sherman was designed to be a tank to exploit breakthroughs. If it had been an infantry support tank then all the infantry divisions would have had them assigned organically but they didn't. The US formed armored divisions where the tanks were in the majority and the armored infantry supported tanks.
American infantry divisions had a tank batallion of shermans, and on average had more tanks than German tank divisions at the time
@tedarcher9120 no they didn't. There were separate tank battalions that could be attached to infantry divisions for specific operations.
Go look up the t/o&e's of US infantry divisions during WW2.
Fair point - infantry support tanks generally had significantly thicker armour for that role
@@craigplatel813 yes those "separate" tank batallions were permanently attached to each division at the front, and could be used by division commander as he pleased. That's 70 shermans per each infantry division, way more than in Wehrmacht tank divisions. There were 70 separate tank batallions and only 45 armored tank batallions, so most shermans were used for infantry support
@@tanfosbery1153 infantry support tanks were m4 shermans and m5 stuarts
A Sherman on a standard British railway flatcar could fit through any railroad tunnel in England. It impressed the British Army that once unloaded it was driven off the docks. No assembly necessary. Same with American trucks.
Every single tank had a reputation of bursting into flames. It was the ammo. Once Sherman’s had wet storage, the tendency dropped the Sherman’s effective armor in the front was almost equal to a tiger
An IDF veteran of the Syria invasion of 1981 told me years ago that M60s did the same thing.
@ allllllll tanks do it. Have you never seen footage of Soviet tanks doing it as well?
The Sherman was built to fight other tanks, as encountered, but not to hunt them like Tank Destroyers.
“…………..Professionals study logistics”
It fits on Liberty and Victory ships.
Outstanding presentation on the Sherman! Thanks for posting!
Missed a trick making the Ford/Ferrari comparison. Should’ve said Porsche
Thanks for this excellent presentation IWM / John ! I now definitely have a better understanding of this tank's capabilities impact & role !
Keep in mind the vast majority of combat the Sherman’s would see in Western Europe was against infantry, something they were designed for. The average Sherman probably never encountered a Tiger or Panther.
Most Tigers and Panthers fought on the Eastern Front, and never in large numbers.
Strangely or maybe not so strangely the handful of times the Germans had built up a significant force of heavy tanks for an attack their combat record was pretty underwhelming. Look at Kursk, Mortain, the Battle of the Bulge as examples.
@@MichalKaczorowski The British actually faced quite a few King tigers around Arnhem. 15 were located above the Rhein river around Arnhem itself. 1 was knocked out by British para's and 2 were immobilized and recovered after the battle. South of Arnhem near the town of Elst were another 15 King tigers. 506th panzer battalion was very keen on not losing them though and used them in small amounts. On october 1st 1944, 8 of these Tiger 2s South of Arnhem were knocked out. 4 could be recovered. So the British knocked out 5 king tigers and made sure 6 needed repairs which meant the 506th panzer battalion lost 1/3 of their King tigers.
So in this case, a large number of Tiger 2s were deployed and were not super successful. The biggest reasons the king tigers weren't successful though wasn't because of combat, but because of rookie crews and the unfavourable terrain and small roads.
The Germans used at least 150 King Tigers in the Battle of the Bulge. But they were too heavy for many bridges, almost all were destroyed or abandoned.
I often hear on these tank channels that the Mark IV was an infantry support tank. I read somewhere the Mark IV was meant to protect their MBT at the time the Mark III FROM infantry.
Supporting Infantry was the Stug's job, in fact Panzers seldom supported the troopen because it was so costly in tanks, and they had so few.
Comments please.
Also, it's like we had intel on the Mark IV when designing the Sherman, look at the stats:
Mark IV Sherman
24 tons 32 tons
short barrel 75 medium length 75
Plate armor cast armor, Army Ordinance thought cast was better, but they were wrong
vertical armor sloped armor (in front) in fact the prototype had radically sloped front glancer
240 hp 400 hp
bogey suspension better bogies
The best tank of WWII was the P-47. Ground attack, 400 MPH and capable of dogfighting a FW-190.
So does that put the Il-2 in second place?
@ by 150 mph!
A flying tank- could do a lot better than anyone else
Excellent presentation.
The Firefly was a brilliant tank, the Brits are king of make do and good enough. Love this tank review, thank you.
The 17 pdr was not so good when a high explosive round was needed, but that didn't matter, because the Firefly was teamed with 75 mm Shermans who could handle those targets. However when German heavies appeared, the Firefly was magnificent - as Wittmann discovered to his cost.
A wonderful example of a British and US WW2 technology combined.
Thank you for facts numbers dates & other data. Good upload.
The Sherman is proof positive that "Quantity has a quality all it's own." is true.
Not just quantity, but it was a quality vehicle as well. Armor *good enough* for most threats. A gun *good enough* to handle most targets. Excellent ergonomics, excellent repairability, excellent standardization from the factory, and let’s not forget great crew survivability.
@Gillymonster18 all true, but in the end, it was the fact that American industry could churn out something like twenty Shermans for every tank of any sort that the Germans could which really helped tip the scales.
Great video, I really agree, people sleep on the Sherman because the Panther and Tiger are so big. Really nice to see some one include reliability in the triangle. Almost add another point on there on ease of production. If you think about it, that really is what set the Sherman apart from the rest. Also the T34, they had so many that Germany couldn't deal with them.
🎖️⭐🙏🏆❤️🩹🛐🇺🇲
Thank you for sharing this
one important thing you omitted (this time) is that the allies needed to stuff the shermans onto ships in large numbers and sail them across the oceans. not so easy to do that with bigger tanks.
I once read a Tiger commander said, a Tiger could beat nine Sherman's, but problem was there was always a tenth.
perfect description- very thorough. many thanks
Absolutely great medium tank. In 1941. By 1943 only adequate. But you'd not get me in one. I just read a history of the Sherwood Foresters regiment by Tom Holland and the casualty rate was well over 100 percent. Yes, the Sherman in numbers was very effective, but that means nothing to the crewmen who face burning to death almost every single day when in combat.
Damn Spiderman wrote a book
Yes unlike our aircraft which were usually the equal or better than the Germans, it must have been a severe mental strain crewing an inferior tank to those of your enemy
Before wet stowage, you certainly wouldn't want to be in a Sherman. After wet stowage was implemented, the newer Sherman's had better crew survival rates than most, if not all of it's contemporaries in 1944. Panzer IV's however, were prone to fires almost as much as the early Shermans(80% burn rate to the Sherman's 82%), but with less average penetrations. (Panzer IV burned after an average of 1.5 penetrations, vs Sherman's 1.9) The Sherman's ergonomic hatches also made escaping easier than in other tanks, which reduced crew casualty rates and crewmen being burned alive. Personally, I wouldn't want to be a tanker in any WW2 era tank!
I love the “easy-8” Sherman and the Hellcat tank destroyer