@infernalzen What about the Sherman Mayfly with the QF17 pdr? That up till the Pershing or for the matter Comet or simply the M36 Jackson the Sherman Mayfly was the one Allied hybrid tank that could actually contend toe to toe with a Tiger I with its excellent AP of the QF 17pdr gun although its APDS and HE were less than adequate still compared to the KwK 36 88mm which had superior ammuniction ballitics in termsof HE damage anyways...
@infernalzen No my point was that the QF 17 pdr on the Sherman 1c hybrid (actually it wasn't actually nicknamed the Firefly Sherman but some Allied tankers/soldiers called it the Sherman Mayfly) atleast was one variant of a Sherman if not the only Sherman variant that could have a chance of defeating the German Heavies at a respectable range. compared to most other Allied tanks which had a woeful gun (mainly 75mm short barrelled)
@infernalzen No my point was that the QF 17 pdr on the Sherman 1c hybrid (actually it wasn't actually nicknamed the Firefly Sherman but some Allied tankers/soldiers called it the Sherman Mayfly) atleast was one variant of a Sherman if not the only Sherman variant that could have a chance of defeating the German Heavies at a respectable range. compared to most other Allied tanks which had a woeful gun (mainly 75mm short barrelled)
@infernalzen But the Germans at the same time also prioritized knocking out the Mayfly Shermans first given the ratio was 1 Mayfly per 4 regular Sherman or Cromwells; the Mayfly would attempt to provide long range cover but at the same time its not like the Mayfly Sherman had any significant upgrade of armor over a standard Sherman (only the mantlet was up armored to 89mm) while German heavies could still easily maul it like any other tank...
@infernalzen Yup - the Panzer IV Ausf H alone could hold off against a basic 75mm Sherman; it was said its 80mm frontal hull was able to withstand blows from a 75mm M3 Sherman gun while having a better 75mm KwK 40 gun that could easily defeat a Sherman. As for the Russians actually it was 122mm - that gun wasn't as good as the German's guns actually becuase of poor optics, accuracy and ROF BUT its undeniable the Russians had unrivalled HE potential in the 122mm
@infernalzen Actually the QF 17 pdr was developed by 1940-1941 when the British realized that the 2pdr and 6pdr's would not be a match for future armor so they actually began to use work on the gun; the first protoype QF 17 pdr's were sent to the African Front in 1943 where the Battle of Medenine they wee able to defeat the Tiger I's armor though it was also due to the fact the British were lying in ambush and used flanking tactics
@infernalzen So actually the QF17 pdr was in service about 1 year after the Tiger - while it actually started seeing service in proper carriages by 1943 onwards. The ones at Medenine were the QF 17pdr/25pdr Pheasants - they were prototype 17 pdr fiitted on 25pdr carriages. As for the 100mm BS-3 yes it was quite powerful - and the D10T - being able to defeat up to 185 mm FLAT armor at 1000 yards - and given its caliber was 100mm it was a good HE shot too!
@infernalzen But the 122mm and the 152mm take it in terms of sheer HE performance against forts and soft targets. True they could not always penetrate German heavies but they could severely spall or disable them if the strikes were right.
@infernalzen O.O where did you read the fact a Pershing destroyed a Tiger Ausf B? I have never heard of this - I have heard of the Pershing defeating aPanther and a Tiger I - even a photo of a Tiger I knocked out by a Pershing but not a Tiger Ausf B! How poweful was the Pershing's 90mm M3 gun? I hear the Jackson with a similar gun struggled against the Panther's glacis until a new HVAP was developed...though still potent
@infernalzen btw was the Pershing that took out a Tiger Ausf B a Super Pershing sent as a test mission to ocmbat the Tiger Ausf B? The duel at Dessau? If so it was stated from a forum reading that the high velocity 90mm T15E1 could knock 8.5 inches or up to 210 mm at 30 deg (242mm) at 1000 yards!
So why didn't they just make bigger more powerfuII tanks? ... say, get hoId of a Tiger tank & just reproduce or make a better version of it? ... probabIy a stupid question huh!?
@turnipnut -- well tank development takes a while... and 55k Shermans produced can't be wrong because of the swarm and strength in numbers produced in a short period of time.
The Sherman served for Britt's, Soviets as well the USA.
Hello their. I am making a short ww2 film and need some tank footage. would you mind if i used some of this and then gave credit and a link to the footage in the credits
@gman57op Yes unfortunately - however on occasions the 152mm CHurchill Mark IV could withstand a few hits from the PaK 40 and KwK 36 but then again the Churchill really lacked the firepower to trade back unfortunately ...
For some reason the 7 AD in Villers did not understand what it meant to take a position. Ok if you were commanding would you allow a single arm, i.e. tanks, to advance? You would not. You would make sure that tank destroyers and antitank guns, and most important, air and heavy weapons support. But that is not how they did it. That position was absolutely key.
@SSRogue88 Man don't be racist! The world is becoming one big country! I can see yout point but you have to realize we are all humans there is not such thing as mud people I mean what gives you the power to choose who is and who isn't worthy of living in Europe??
@grevatious The world is becoming everything, but for sure not ONE big country. Go into a multiracial town of your choice and search for ONE. Its not there. The whites here, the blacks there, the jews right, the muslims left.. and so on.
Thats not ONE world. Thats one marketplace. Thats all, what the world is becoming. Nothing more.
@TrainAsia Ah yeah? 138 tanks and 132 anti-tank guns. And many other armored vehicles. with the technology of ww2, getting out numbered... and YOU call him overrated? go home and play with your sister, little boy.
@SSRogue88 LOL and yet you have the democratic freedom won by the Allies to go on something like Youtube which totalitarian regimes like the Nazi's would never allow for a minute, and voice your opinions.
@SSRogue88 Retardation; Characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70
@SSRogue88 Do we have a choice? Your Friends of the third reich would have stripped Europe even more of resources. All of the Jews would have been exterminated. You can see whatever you want about Muslims and immigrants, but no one was better at mass murder and thievery than the Germans in WW2. Believe me, the problems we now have with immigrants are nothing compared with the shit the world would have been in Germany had won the war.
@Ranokian The chinese and soviets have come close at points in history, fairly recent points. But in both cases, they focused their efforts inwards on political adversaries. I don't know if that makes it any more defensible, a death caused by government is a death caused by government, whether it's in war or as an internal political casualty. Borders are just things on maps.
@daw162 Agreed. Wrong is wrong. I reacted cause I just couldn't stand this glorification of this devilish regime , the stupid kind of argumentation I reacted on. One wrong does not justify another wrong. After all, standing in the shit is bad, but drowning in it, like a German victory would have meant, is worse.
@SSRogue88 if we have'nt supported USA, and waged war in other countries that force people to seek azyl in our continent, this would never happen, so think before you speak out
@SSRogue88 ....wow, I can't understand how you can believe in that crap. It really cracks me up to see you guys zig heiling at white supremecy gatherings. There's a reason why the world banded together against the nazis, and why the whole world laughs at you guys; Its because a regime like that (if it by some miralce ever came to be) would fall apart in months because of the beliefs. Besides, why should someone die because of the way they were born, whatever color that may be. Oh, and I'm white.
For all the people saying the allies ripped off german designs..... They didn't they just took the german engineers and scientests to do all the working for them in exchange for no imaginary war crime punishments that would end them up in jail for life or executed. For the americans it was called operation paperclip. This is why the first mig's and american jets looked identical (continuation of german ME designs).
@infernalzen JAGDPANTHER is even BETTER! Well yes ok more maintenance with the PaK 43, heavier at the front drive, sacrificing a turret with limited traverse but most improtantly you get better firepower, good armor still and good speed - compared to the collossal behemoths like the Tiger Ausf B or the Jadgtiger :(
@infernalzen Hmm in reality while the Ferdinand/Elefant were flawed they still carved wonders in thier legacy particularly the huge tank kill ratios they had for thier own losses - not to mention thier heavy armor and firepower for an AFV of WWII.
@infernalzen the T34 did have a better mobility, kursk proves it. but the Tiger could keep up. plus it was extremely hard to get near a tiger. it's crews were extremely well trained (Michael Wittman and his crew) and the russians had rooks driving the tank from the gates of the factory to the battlefield, receiving almost no training
@HolgerLovesMusic I remember it was Heinz Guderian to complain about Panther: "... they (Panthers) burnt too raised easily, the fuel and oil systems Were insufficiently protected, and the two crews Were lost to lack of training." I'm not saying for sure that was a bad tank, but if Germany had not been slow production of the tank, and Italy had adopted the model before September 8, 1943, perhaps some battles would have ended up differently.
@globautojr Well, many things could have changed. If the Sturmgewehr44/STG44/MP44 was used 1941 and not (thanks to Hitler) and the WW's end. The ME262 as a fighter against the allied bombers who bombed the Axis factorys. (Again thanks to Hitler) Hitler even dismissed his best gerenal, Erich von Manstein. The guy who take over France and Poland with his tactics. There are so many mistakes made by Hitler. Politicans should NEVER fight in wars. That's where soldiers and engineers for.
@HolgerLovesMusic but Hitler made good decisions early on in the war, for example he ok'd the armoured thrust through the Ardennes and his decision to order the Army to stand fast when the Soviets counterattacked outside Moscow in '41 saved the central front from collapse. It was only later in the war when the tide started to turne
@4exgold Hitlers orders killed to many german soldiers.. you can not push against an army that it eight times bigger then yours. hey, against france and poland, no problem. but not against the russian people and the russian winter.
@4exgold he just let Erich von Manstein do his work. But Hitler was perfect, when it comes to firering his generals. Thats a big reason why Germany lost. Look for some doku's here on youtube "Erich von Manstein" he was an amazing guy. But like all germans, a bad leader.
@globautojr Gunderian even complained abt on the armor - he noted some early Panthers due to having face hardened cast armor it could crack off at the front - the only thing he commented was good really was that the KwK 42/PaK 42 could knock the Russian tanks nicely though ...
@RickMcSwift Of course! If you think of it - its almost 70 years since the Tiger first saw combat and upon its legendary impression in WWII and in today's aficionados of armor and WWII material in particular the Tiger I has carved its niche; take its 100mm armor for example - for my part its the armor rather than the 88mm KwK 36 thats more impressive/frightening - the 100mm armor was RHA and had excellent durability (Brinell hardness 250-280+) of Nickel-Steel comp - very hard to penetrate :D
The Germans had by far ,better tanks than the allies!! Obviously many faults caused the Germans to loose the 2nd World War, However compare any tanks to a Panther or Tiger tank and at best of times the allies tanks would come off worse!! Although nearing the endof the war the allies had developed much improved tanks like the IS's and the firefly's (75mm turret on the sherman model) !!
@breakingbisley The fireflys were still no match for their German counterparts- I recall hearing that a troop of tanks got one firefly, which panthers could identify because of the barrel, and easily knock out from a distance. The IS had a much better chance, but I have read even the Hetzer could knock it out from around 700metres. Its interesting to notice that after the war the allies ripped off all the german technology, influencing thier own tank design :)
@Ralroost That is a very good point :P well the only other tank i could think with a good chance of course is the Pershing. However only 20of them were brought into service in january 1945 but i woud say there was a decent match :) But in all German technology was far superior just they didnt have the resources. If so i think the war could have been very different on either the Western or Eastern Front !! :)
@Ralroost The Firefly was armored similarly to the sherman, which was similar to the p4 or the t34. But the 17pdr gun on that thing, it could kill a tiger from more than 1500 meters.
@TheHIV123 Thats true- however I have never read explicitly that they had defeated panther or tiger frontal armour. Also, The tiger had an even longer range, I think it was 2000m +. Personally I would choose a tiger or panther ;)
@Ralroost Yeah the Tiger could kill a Sherman from 2000+ meters, and a Panther could too. But, the western Allies rarely encountered situations where those ranges came into play. For instance if you look at the Battle of Arracourt, Around 100 Sherman 75's took out a German force consisting of 300 tanks, mostly Panthers, And they did it by not allowing the Germans to take advantage of their tanks superior range and the like.
@Ralroost No no my point was (not that you care or in your own prefference anyways) was that your comment was you'd prefer the Panther and I just meant that the Jagdpanther I reckon personally is even better - its a Panther essentially but sacrifices a turret but with a bigger gun pretty much and abit cheaper...
@HeirofGojira91 Oh now I remember- fair enough, the Jagdpather would be an absolute beast, as long as it wasn't flank, I would assume. I guess it depends if its offensive or defensive fighting you're doing :)
@Ralroost I read the original schematics of the Jagdpanther was meant to be similar to the Panther II; 100mm glacis front, 60-80mm lower hull, 60mm side hull armor and 60mm superstructure armor with 40mm armor rear - though the Panther II was cancelled the compromise was that the Jagdpanther hull would have features of the simplified proposal of the Panther II...
@Ralroost And yes - very very very serious tactical disadvantage for any Panther or Jagdpanther was the side armor was barely thicker than 50mm in LOS anyways despite the sloping; other than keeping out MG's and some light cannons its not gonna stand up well against rockets, guns or the Sherman 75 for the matter :(
@TheHIV123 your wrong the firefly is still like the sherman tank that have a 76mm but the different is the length of the gun the firefly have longer cannon than the sherman but it not guaranty that it can destroy the the tiger only the panzer 5 i think
@30sectodeath The 17 pounder was a much higher performing gun than the 76mm. At 1000 meters it could penetrate 131mm of armor which the 76mm gun could not do. If the firefly was APDS, at 500 meters it could (on paper) penetrate the armor on the front of the King Tiger. The 76mm gun was comparable to the 75mm gun on the P4 and the 85mm gun on the T34/85.
@TheHIV123 omg are you dreaming or something maybe you mean the Tiger 1(50% cahnce to penetrate it armor) but if it come to Tiger Royal it armor is thicker that its previews and its a slope armor which mean the armor is been double its size
@30sectodeath This means that at 500 meters the 17pdr gun has a good chance to penetrating the armor in the frontal arc of the King Tiger. It also means that it could potentially do the same at 1000 meters.
If you dont believe me look it up, but I am right about this.
Except that the APDS for the 17 pounder was dreadfully inaccurate as hell, crews didn't use it at any armoured targetd above 500m as the chance of hitting was low, it also had a nasty tendecy when it struck a slope to simple bounce off.
It is a very powerfull shell but it had a huge nubmer of issues.
@Dreachon Yes, the early production APDS shells did have a number of issues, not least of which was its accuracy problem. At also didn't do that much damage when it penetrated for whatever reason. By the end of the war though it had become an accurate shell, though I am not sure they ever fixed the lethality issue.
Its interesting that you say it often bounced off sloped armor, I cant seem to find that said anywhere. On top of that, modern APDS is very effective against sloped armor.
@TheHIV123 I don't mean to add irrelevant information but in terms of firepower true the QF17 podr was an excellent Allied AT gun cannon BUT compared to the Sherman 75mm gun the QF17pdr actually was inferior in terms of HE work; as AT gun cannons rely on high velocity and thick shell casing for big propellant charges it comes at the cost of HE shells; as the Allieds pushed on to Germany there were more improvised defnences and bunkers rather than just German heavies or panzers;
@TheHIV123 And as we know in WWII AT guns with higher velocity would fire a lower amount of HE shot so the same was for the QF17pdr gun despite haivng a slightly bigger caliber than the 75mm guns of the Shermans. They did improve a HE shell for the 17 pdr in 1944 but even so the Sherman's 75mm was better as a general target gun cannon as it didn't need a big propellant charge NOR thicker casing; so it can be argued the Sherman's 75mm was even superior to the Panthers in HE!
@HeirofGojira91 Yes, the Shermans 75mm gun was an excellent HE weapon, and that why it saw service all the way to the end of the war, because the troops liked them. The reality is that Allied tanks encountered dug in infantry far more than they ever encountered enemy tanks. Only 20-30% of allied tanks were actually destroyed by other tanks in France, and that number my even be lower.
@TheHIV123 Unfortunately though save the 122mm, ZVEROBOY, QF 17pdr or BS-3 for the matter the 75mm or the standard AP of the 75mm on the Sherman struggled against the frontal 100mm durable armor of the Tiger I. But again HE of the Sherman was potent against soft targets; yes the Russians had superior HE from the 122mm or the ZVEROBOY's 152.4mm ML-20 but certainly the 75mm as we know it was better in HE than higher velocity guns like the QF17pdr, 76mm M1 or I'll bet the Panther's own PaK/KwK 42!
@TheHIV123 YES of course; I just read The Battle of Berlin where there are photo's of Russian soldiers struggling in the rubble while fanatical Germans desperately tried thier best to hold off; a paragraph described the majority of tanks destroyed (70% or so) were due to Panzerfausts rather than really remaining Panzers for the matter; Russian soldiers in the end just dragged up huge B4, ML-20's or ZVEROBOYS and hammered these dug in defences to smithereens :(
@TheHIV123 And speaking of the Sherman 75mm gun; you know the M24 Chafee's 75mm M6 gun was remakably almost as powerful as the standard 75mm gun of a Sherman - that shows just how impressive however 'weak' the 75mm American M3 or M6 may be in AP; some useful HE; as the British found out if they wanted to improve HE on thier 6 pdr or 2pdr they had to sacrifce some AP and due to the small turret ring...they had to stick with the QF 75 as there were not enough Sherman Mayflies at times...
@TheHIV123 And for the Russians naturally while thier AP was not up the standard of the Germans they simply made up for thier arty performance with mass spamming, numbers and some huge HE performance; the ZVEROBOY's HE in particular was very useful against field forts - and the OF-471 of the 122mm gun in the JS-2 or the A19 field gun was potent enough to smash soft targets - anything short of a German heavy tank or strong bunker...
@30sectodeath Once again, the penetration tables dont lie. At 1000 meters the 17pdr, could penetrate 130mm of 30 degree sloped armor plate. The thickest armor on the Tiger 1 is 102 mm, which means it could be killed at 1000+ metes with eh 17pdr. With an APDS shell the 17pdr could penetrate 208 mm of armour at 457 m and 192 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle. the thickest armor plate is on the King Tiger is 180mm sloped at 40 degrees.
@TheHIV123 Incorrect. The QF17 was not able to penetrate Tiger armor except top or bottom from that range. Possibly a good side or rear shot might penetrate but at 1500m that is unlikely.
@0341MarineInfantry "The 17-pounder used two types of anti-tank ammunition. APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition could penetrate 140 mm of armour at 457 metres and 131 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle. APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) could penetrate 208 mm of armour at 457 m and 192 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle,[5][6][7] allowing it to penetrate the armour of even the redoubtable King Tiger tank."
@0341MarineInfantry The tigers Armor was 102mm max, That means that at 1000 meters the firefly could knock out a tiger in its frontal arc, And it would not be a stretch to say that it could probably take one out from 1500 meters since I believe the shell would was still able to penetrate more than 100mm at 1500 meters. Also remember that the penetration data was taken on plate at a 30 degree angle and the tigers armor was not sloped.
@TheHIV123 Sherman Mayfly 1c had slightly more armor - 89mm on the turret front vs the 76mm on the Sherman. Other than omitting the hull gunner and having a bustle for the radio it pretty much was still an M4A4 with the QF 17 pdr...
@0341MarineInfantry When I said that I was thinking of a lot of the French tank design after the war. A lot of the hull designs mimicked the King tiger, they used maybach engines, and even in one case with no clear reason, borrowed the overlapping road wheel/torsion bar suspension from panther/tiger/KT.
@breakingbisley The Allies tanks were not really that inferior. By far the most common German tank, the Panzer 4 was equivalent to the Sherman 75 and the T 34, and I would argue that the P4 was worse than either of those tanks. Of course, the German fielded a wide range of heavies which outclassed the medium tanks fielded by the Allies, but then, you are comparing apples to oranges. And then the Allies fielded their own heavies which were just as good as the Germans.
Kickin ass in europe as always,youre the best michael wittmann,he's is the reason why the americans dont dare to make a shitty ass hollywood film about american tank aces destroying 10000000000000000000 german tanks a second
Germany never started world war. British Empire and France declared war ON Germany. Economics blockades on Germany by allies began well before 1939.
@86razva WOW! Could you please revise history just a little more. One more post and you'll have Germany winning. Germany attacked Poland, Poland was friends with Britain and France. Germany started it.
There are several reasons why the Allies did not use heavy large equipment ( for the most part ), and not the least of which was logistics. You could ship parts to assemble far more Shermans than you could a Tiger equivalent in the same size ship. The similiarity of parts allowed for much quicker re-assembly and field repair as well.
There was also Allied tank doctrine which was entirely different.
Can you see floating a Tiger tank off an LCT on Juno Beach...?
Hitler should have stopped production of Panzer IV and put the resources on the Panzer V and then King Tiger, also he should have minimized the funding to the Rocket projects and rather mass produced jet fighters to fight allied planes. He then should have attacked Soviet Union in 1940 as planned and let the Italians suffer in Greece and he also should have sold a few military weapons to Italy and Japan for them to develope their own versions. Hitler should also helped Japan with conquest China
@vinskiize Germany never started world war. British Empire and France declared war ON Germany. Economics blockades on Germany by allies began well before 1939.
@SpartanPict Oh go take your dumb.as-shit Nazi revisionism and choke on it. Even the German don't believe such crap any more, and believe me I knew a lot of siegheilers in my day, including some in-law families. Germany started the war. Period. No one asked Adoof to invade CZ, Austria, or Poland. He did it because he was a moron.
@Ralroost I guess I'll choose to laugh out loud at this point. When I lived in Vienna, the locals would often make snide comments about Germans. My reaction was always: "Ah yes, for the Viennese, Hitler is a German and Beethoven an Austrian..." Lucky I am a big fellow...
@Ralroost oops, sorry i see I responded to two ppl and read the wrong one (fail). Why are you laughing out loud..? are you mocking me or the austrians?
@Ralroost Not mocking, But did not have to invade Austria can be interpreted as a joke... The Austrians were quite amenable to being taken over... They did not lie back and think of England... But I also ranted for a moment to some revisionist there. I find them quite brainless.
@SpartanPict I think it was Germany who invaded Poland thus forcing France and the UK to declare war on Germany. Economics blockades were there for a reason. Germanys intentions weren't a mystery.
@SMGJohn Japan could have easily developed heavy tanks like Germany if it wanted, the thing is they didn't see a need to. Italy on the other hand was just a parasite to Germany, being more of a burden than help.
With regards to China, how could Germany have helped Japan? Besides being in the "Axis" what exactly did the two have in common?
@Ravensteinzh Oh? Still stuck in the 1840s?? Never heard of transportation?? You could transport it with ships, that would be hard. You can use submarines, you could drive them over India. You could also possible fly them over. See that wasn't so hard now was it, or hey just send the blueprints with a postal jet airplane.
@SMGJohn If you honestly think Germany could have delivered Panther tanks to Japan in 1943, then you are a moron.
Look on a map and check the basics of the second world war and you'd find out Germany and Japan would have found it absolutely impossible to deliver to each other Panthers. How can Germany fly parts of panthers and blue prints to Japan when both of them found it extremely hard to even prevent their aircraft from being downed in later parts of the war?
@Ravensteinzh Actually thats how Japan got the german designs for their jet engine- two subs simply carried them back to japan. Though one was destroyed by british bombers.
@Ravensteinzh Your calling me a moron when your retarded enough to think the war was like in video games? Sorry to spoil it for you champ but Germany was already having a panther tanks ready for delivery to Japan in 1944 it was returned by Japan to Germany as Germany needed everything to fight USSR. And no, Germany went to Japan many times in WW2. Submarines where common transportation but also flying supplies. You forgot that Germany flew tons of supplies to China in WW2
@SMGJohn You are funny because you think it was possible for Germany to ship Panther tanks to Japan to help them fight a losing war when Germany desperately needed every tank they had. Lack of common sense obviously is quite common on YouTube amongst people of lower intelligence.
@Ravensteinzh "Japan reportedly bought a single Panther Ausf. D for reverse engineering purposes in 1943. However the tank apparently never actually made it to Japan. The Panther's sloped armor and turret design nevertheless did influence the design of Japan's last wartime tank prototypes; the medium Type 4 Chi-To and heavy Type 5 Chi-Ri.[122]" It's from Wikipedia, think again kid. A transport ship disquiced as an allied ship could easilly penetrate the defences...
@SMGJohn You just killed your entire argument with that source, if it is credible.
You clearly stated Germany should ship a few Panthers to Japan to help with Japan's war effort and you bring up a source that only proves that it didn't make it there.
Yet again you show the same logical fallacies in your argument, putting words in my mouth that I never even suggested.
Actually, the 'Allies' had a variety of tanks at this point that could contend with a Tiger, but they were all Soviet tanks.
mwurden 2 days ago
@mwurden yeah, german tankers said on the western front, there were NO allied tanks they feared, just the air to ground planes.
infernalzen 1 day ago
@infernalzen What about the Sherman Mayfly with the QF17 pdr? That up till the Pershing or for the matter Comet or simply the M36 Jackson the Sherman Mayfly was the one Allied hybrid tank that could actually contend toe to toe with a Tiger I with its excellent AP of the QF 17pdr gun although its APDS and HE were less than adequate still compared to the KwK 36 88mm which had superior ammuniction ballitics in termsof HE damage anyways...
HeirofGojira91 12 hours ago
@HeirofGojira91 think it was the sherman firefly with 17lbr.
i guess even the panzer4 crews knew they could destroy a sherman +went to kill the fireflies first.
i think a pershing did destroy a king tiger, by flanking it in a town.
but the allies had alot of weak tanks +a few weak tanks with good guns?
british 17lbr in service 3years after the 88mm? quite abit behind germany
but russians had 100mm +120mm of their tanks by the wars end :o
infernalzen 11 hours ago
@infernalzen No my point was that the QF 17 pdr on the Sherman 1c hybrid (actually it wasn't actually nicknamed the Firefly Sherman but some Allied tankers/soldiers called it the Sherman Mayfly) atleast was one variant of a Sherman if not the only Sherman variant that could have a chance of defeating the German Heavies at a respectable range. compared to most other Allied tanks which had a woeful gun (mainly 75mm short barrelled)
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen No my point was that the QF 17 pdr on the Sherman 1c hybrid (actually it wasn't actually nicknamed the Firefly Sherman but some Allied tankers/soldiers called it the Sherman Mayfly) atleast was one variant of a Sherman if not the only Sherman variant that could have a chance of defeating the German Heavies at a respectable range. compared to most other Allied tanks which had a woeful gun (mainly 75mm short barrelled)
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen But the Germans at the same time also prioritized knocking out the Mayfly Shermans first given the ratio was 1 Mayfly per 4 regular Sherman or Cromwells; the Mayfly would attempt to provide long range cover but at the same time its not like the Mayfly Sherman had any significant upgrade of armor over a standard Sherman (only the mantlet was up armored to 89mm) while German heavies could still easily maul it like any other tank...
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen Yup - the Panzer IV Ausf H alone could hold off against a basic 75mm Sherman; it was said its 80mm frontal hull was able to withstand blows from a 75mm M3 Sherman gun while having a better 75mm KwK 40 gun that could easily defeat a Sherman. As for the Russians actually it was 122mm - that gun wasn't as good as the German's guns actually becuase of poor optics, accuracy and ROF BUT its undeniable the Russians had unrivalled HE potential in the 122mm
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen Actually the QF 17 pdr was developed by 1940-1941 when the British realized that the 2pdr and 6pdr's would not be a match for future armor so they actually began to use work on the gun; the first protoype QF 17 pdr's were sent to the African Front in 1943 where the Battle of Medenine they wee able to defeat the Tiger I's armor though it was also due to the fact the British were lying in ambush and used flanking tactics
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen So actually the QF17 pdr was in service about 1 year after the Tiger - while it actually started seeing service in proper carriages by 1943 onwards. The ones at Medenine were the QF 17pdr/25pdr Pheasants - they were prototype 17 pdr fiitted on 25pdr carriages. As for the 100mm BS-3 yes it was quite powerful - and the D10T - being able to defeat up to 185 mm FLAT armor at 1000 yards - and given its caliber was 100mm it was a good HE shot too!
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen But the 122mm and the 152mm take it in terms of sheer HE performance against forts and soft targets. True they could not always penetrate German heavies but they could severely spall or disable them if the strikes were right.
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen O.O where did you read the fact a Pershing destroyed a Tiger Ausf B? I have never heard of this - I have heard of the Pershing defeating aPanther and a Tiger I - even a photo of a Tiger I knocked out by a Pershing but not a Tiger Ausf B! How poweful was the Pershing's 90mm M3 gun? I hear the Jackson with a similar gun struggled against the Panther's glacis until a new HVAP was developed...though still potent
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
@infernalzen btw was the Pershing that took out a Tiger Ausf B a Super Pershing sent as a test mission to ocmbat the Tiger Ausf B? The duel at Dessau? If so it was stated from a forum reading that the high velocity 90mm T15E1 could knock 8.5 inches or up to 210 mm at 30 deg (242mm) at 1000 yards!
HeirofGojira91 11 hours ago
Visit the imperial war museum in london uk see example of all weapons.
kingharryannis 4 days ago
88 likes to top comment... fo' shizzle
krejslayer 4 days ago
So why didn't they just make bigger more powerfuII tanks? ... say, get hoId of a Tiger tank & just reproduce or make a better version of it? ... probabIy a stupid question huh!?
PiskieBenWa 4 days ago
If only the Americans had concentrated on the Pershing instead of the Sherman there wouldn't have been so many losses in Allied tank crews.
turnipnut 6 days ago
@turnipnut -- well tank development takes a while... and 55k Shermans produced can't be wrong because of the swarm and strength in numbers produced in a short period of time.
The Sherman served for Britt's, Soviets as well the USA.
the82spartans 6 days ago
@the82spartans shhhhh the russians won the war on their own LOL
just the same as usa won the war on its own.
infernalzen 11 hours ago
@infernalzen -- Soviets may have collaped if not for Allied efforts. Ever hear of SPAM?
Just think if the Jap's had German Panzer blitz setup on E. side of USSR.
Epic.
the82spartans 11 hours ago
Western Allied tanks looked like shit.
Octobersun77 1 week ago
@Octobersun77 moving chunky square blocks, and "tanks" with armor as thick as paper.
tooichan 1 week ago
Hello their. I am making a short ww2 film and need some tank footage. would you mind if i used some of this and then gave credit and a link to the footage in the credits
haleymadimckenzie 1 week ago
churchill stand no chance
gman57op 1 week ago
@gman57op Yes unfortunately - however on occasions the 152mm CHurchill Mark IV could withstand a few hits from the PaK 40 and KwK 36 but then again the Churchill really lacked the firepower to trade back unfortunately ...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
shermans were good epecailly the e8 sherman. but none of them stood a chance against tiger or panther unil the pershing
gman57op 1 week ago
@gman57op The Sherman Mayfly 1c hyrbid with the QF 17 pdr could have a chance at combat ranges to defeat the German heavies.
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
Allied tanks were a scandal in WW2.
directorcj75 1 week ago
Hail hitler
germanairsoft12 1 week ago
For some reason the 7 AD in Villers did not understand what it meant to take a position. Ok if you were commanding would you allow a single arm, i.e. tanks, to advance? You would not. You would make sure that tank destroyers and antitank guns, and most important, air and heavy weapons support. But that is not how they did it. That position was absolutely key.
lebarosky 1 week ago
Don't you just love it when politics of men in the rear overrides the safety and abilities of those on the front line?
sol3a1 2 weeks ago
Excellent voice over commentary and footage. Great vid.
rtorre02 2 weeks ago
I like Tiger I, King Tiger ! They are smart beasts !
gonojaja 2 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 Man don't be racist! The world is becoming one big country! I can see yout point but you have to realize we are all humans there is not such thing as mud people I mean what gives you the power to choose who is and who isn't worthy of living in Europe??
grevatious 3 weeks ago
@grevatious The world is becoming everything, but for sure not ONE big country. Go into a multiracial town of your choice and search for ONE. Its not there. The whites here, the blacks there, the jews right, the muslims left.. and so on.
Thats not ONE world. Thats one marketplace. Thats all, what the world is becoming. Nothing more.
HauptmannDE 2 weeks ago 3
@HauptmannDE Good shot , herr hauptmann...
globautojr 2 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 Wow really? then you probably had a problem with italians and spaniards all along then! racists prick
MusikCabaret 3 weeks ago
@MusikCabaret
And you forgot the greeks they look like gypsies too..
tnycman 2 weeks ago
King Tiger was the best.
sahtekar1000 3 weeks ago
This PROVED that soldier "never" failed thier Commander in history of warfare. It's thier thier "Commander" that failed them!
KhonSiam 3 weeks ago
Michael Wittmann is over-rated!
TrainAsia 3 weeks ago
@TrainAsia Ah yeah? 138 tanks and 132 anti-tank guns. And many other armored vehicles. with the technology of ww2, getting out numbered... and YOU call him overrated? go home and play with your sister, little boy.
HolgerLovesMusic 3 weeks ago
@HolgerLovesMusic - little boy? took one to recognize one BOY, yeah he's over-rated BOY! Go get me some water betch!
TrainAsia 2 weeks ago
RIP Michael Wittmann, the best tank commander of the war.
Rebellion1718 3 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 LOL and yet you have the democratic freedom won by the Allies to go on something like Youtube which totalitarian regimes like the Nazi's would never allow for a minute, and voice your opinions.
Thespeakerofmanytru8 3 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 Retardation; Characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70
nareea 3 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 Do we have a choice? Your Friends of the third reich would have stripped Europe even more of resources. All of the Jews would have been exterminated. You can see whatever you want about Muslims and immigrants, but no one was better at mass murder and thievery than the Germans in WW2. Believe me, the problems we now have with immigrants are nothing compared with the shit the world would have been in Germany had won the war.
Ranokian 3 weeks ago
@Ranokian The chinese and soviets have come close at points in history, fairly recent points. But in both cases, they focused their efforts inwards on political adversaries. I don't know if that makes it any more defensible, a death caused by government is a death caused by government, whether it's in war or as an internal political casualty. Borders are just things on maps.
daw162 3 weeks ago
@daw162 Agreed. Wrong is wrong. I reacted cause I just couldn't stand this glorification of this devilish regime , the stupid kind of argumentation I reacted on. One wrong does not justify another wrong. After all, standing in the shit is bad, but drowning in it, like a German victory would have meant, is worse.
Ranokian 3 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 if we have'nt supported USA, and waged war in other countries that force people to seek azyl in our continent, this would never happen, so think before you speak out
TheAnkjavel 3 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 ....wow, I can't understand how you can believe in that crap. It really cracks me up to see you guys zig heiling at white supremecy gatherings. There's a reason why the world banded together against the nazis, and why the whole world laughs at you guys; Its because a regime like that (if it by some miralce ever came to be) would fall apart in months because of the beliefs. Besides, why should someone die because of the way they were born, whatever color that may be. Oh, and I'm white.
MrGridlock93 3 weeks ago
For all the people saying the allies ripped off german designs..... They didn't they just took the german engineers and scientests to do all the working for them in exchange for no imaginary war crime punishments that would end them up in jail for life or executed. For the americans it was called operation paperclip. This is why the first mig's and american jets looked identical (continuation of german ME designs).
TruthTeller137 3 weeks ago
Sherman had no chance against a tiger !
julian117891 3 weeks ago
@julian117891 sure words :DD
DasMarc98 3 weeks ago
@SSRogue88 yeah, alot of good people died on both sides.
infernalzen 3 weeks ago
A sherman tank could easily knock out a tiger...all you had to do was drop the sherman from about 40,000 feet onto the tiger.
moonshineinsummer1 4 weeks ago 88
@moonshineinsummer1 hahahahhaahhahahahahaha
those are facts
Giulianosse 3 weeks ago
@moonshineinsummer1 WHAT? oh.. funny
steeltwistercoaster 2 weeks ago
@moonshineinsummer1 XD
globautojr 2 weeks ago
@moonshineinsummer1 or swarm it with hundreds of Shermans
D13fledermause 2 weeks ago
@moonshineinsummer1 OH HOHO THINK OF THE INSURANCE HAHA!
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@moonshineinsummer1 AHAHAHA gg man.
SacreDro 1 week ago
Even now the tiger still looks like it could scare the shit out of you.
RickMcSwift 4 weeks ago 30
@RickMcSwift i think the king tiger is the best looking tank ever built :)
infernalzen 3 weeks ago 34
@infernalzen I personaly prefer the Panther :)
HolgerLovesMusic 3 weeks ago 22
@HolgerLovesMusic yeah, in a war of movement it would be better
infernalzen 3 weeks ago 5
@infernalzen JAGDPANTHER is even BETTER! Well yes ok more maintenance with the PaK 43, heavier at the front drive, sacrificing a turret with limited traverse but most improtantly you get better firepower, good armor still and good speed - compared to the collossal behemoths like the Tiger Ausf B or the Jadgtiger :(
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 i play world of tanks +the jagdpanther +ferdi are my favourites
jagdtiger is awesome too...
infernalzen 12 hours ago
@infernalzen Hmm in reality while the Ferdinand/Elefant were flawed they still carved wonders in thier legacy particularly the huge tank kill ratios they had for thier own losses - not to mention thier heavy armor and firepower for an AFV of WWII.
HeirofGojira91 12 hours ago
@infernalzen the Tiger was mobile enough
MrILoveFirearms 13 hours ago
@MrILoveFirearms lower ground pressure than the T34 :) contrary to what alot of programmes say
infernalzen 12 hours ago
@infernalzen the T34 did have a better mobility, kursk proves it. but the Tiger could keep up. plus it was extremely hard to get near a tiger. it's crews were extremely well trained (Michael Wittman and his crew) and the russians had rooks driving the tank from the gates of the factory to the battlefield, receiving almost no training
MrILoveFirearms 4 hours ago
@HolgerLovesMusic but the panther is more delicate...
globautojr 2 weeks ago
@globautojr nope, he was not. the tiger had the same fucking problems :(
HolgerLovesMusic 2 weeks ago
@HolgerLovesMusic I remember it was Heinz Guderian to complain about Panther: "... they (Panthers) burnt too raised easily, the fuel and oil systems Were insufficiently protected, and the two crews Were lost to lack of training." I'm not saying for sure that was a bad tank, but if Germany had not been slow production of the tank, and Italy had adopted the model before September 8, 1943, perhaps some battles would have ended up differently.
globautojr 2 weeks ago
@globautojr Well, many things could have changed. If the Sturmgewehr44/STG44/MP44 was used 1941 and not (thanks to Hitler) and the WW's end. The ME262 as a fighter against the allied bombers who bombed the Axis factorys. (Again thanks to Hitler) Hitler even dismissed his best gerenal, Erich von Manstein. The guy who take over France and Poland with his tactics. There are so many mistakes made by Hitler. Politicans should NEVER fight in wars. That's where soldiers and engineers for.
HolgerLovesMusic 2 weeks ago
@HolgerLovesMusic ok,sure...
globautojr 2 weeks ago
@HolgerLovesMusic but Hitler made good decisions early on in the war, for example he ok'd the armoured thrust through the Ardennes and his decision to order the Army to stand fast when the Soviets counterattacked outside Moscow in '41 saved the central front from collapse. It was only later in the war when the tide started to turne
that his orders & strategy looked strange.
4exgold 1 week ago
@4exgold Hitlers orders killed to many german soldiers.. you can not push against an army that it eight times bigger then yours. hey, against france and poland, no problem. but not against the russian people and the russian winter.
HolgerLovesMusic 1 week ago
@HolgerLovesMusic i agree...to invade Russia is suicide but certainly he made good military decisions early in war
4exgold 1 week ago
@4exgold he just let Erich von Manstein do his work. But Hitler was perfect, when it comes to firering his generals. Thats a big reason why Germany lost. Look for some doku's here on youtube "Erich von Manstein" he was an amazing guy. But like all germans, a bad leader.
HolgerLovesMusic 1 week ago
@globautojr Gunderian even complained abt on the armor - he noted some early Panthers due to having face hardened cast armor it could crack off at the front - the only thing he commented was good really was that the KwK 42/PaK 42 could knock the Russian tanks nicely though ...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@RickMcSwift Of course! If you think of it - its almost 70 years since the Tiger first saw combat and upon its legendary impression in WWII and in today's aficionados of armor and WWII material in particular the Tiger I has carved its niche; take its 100mm armor for example - for my part its the armor rather than the 88mm KwK 36 thats more impressive/frightening - the 100mm armor was RHA and had excellent durability (Brinell hardness 250-280+) of Nickel-Steel comp - very hard to penetrate :D
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
Ja hallo waarom doetie het niet
draaier327 1 month ago
...wow.. no.. Pnz V = Tiger, VI = Panther, VII = Tiger II, VIII would have been the Lowe if Hitler said yes to it.
Strato50 1 month ago
the panther 75mm gun is more accurate and deadly than tiger 88mm gun but if you ecounter their most badass tank the jagdtiger that has 128mmgun
you will be lost in oblivion with such shot:)
acefarbringer 1 month ago
@acefarbringer The Jagdtiger didnt have a turret i think, or it was not classified as a tank but as a tank destroyer
FantasyFinal4 1 month ago
What now? We need such fighters in all the Western World to break the dorse of the Jewish-Islamic conspiracy and subversion in all our countrys!88!
marzipann777 1 month ago
Can anyone tell me what doc this is from?
furiousz555 1 month ago
Oh Christ! ...I just knew the comments here were going to be good.
"Quantity has a quality all of it's own." Josef Stalin.
digglyda 1 month ago
The Germans had by far ,better tanks than the allies!! Obviously many faults caused the Germans to loose the 2nd World War, However compare any tanks to a Panther or Tiger tank and at best of times the allies tanks would come off worse!! Although nearing the endof the war the allies had developed much improved tanks like the IS's and the firefly's (75mm turret on the sherman model) !!
breakingbisley 1 month ago
@breakingbisley The fireflys were still no match for their German counterparts- I recall hearing that a troop of tanks got one firefly, which panthers could identify because of the barrel, and easily knock out from a distance. The IS had a much better chance, but I have read even the Hetzer could knock it out from around 700metres. Its interesting to notice that after the war the allies ripped off all the german technology, influencing thier own tank design :)
Ralroost 1 month ago 2
@Ralroost That is a very good point :P well the only other tank i could think with a good chance of course is the Pershing. However only 20of them were brought into service in january 1945 but i woud say there was a decent match :) But in all German technology was far superior just they didnt have the resources. If so i think the war could have been very different on either the Western or Eastern Front !! :)
breakingbisley 1 month ago
@Ralroost The Firefly was armored similarly to the sherman, which was similar to the p4 or the t34. But the 17pdr gun on that thing, it could kill a tiger from more than 1500 meters.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@TheHIV123 Thats true- however I have never read explicitly that they had defeated panther or tiger frontal armour. Also, The tiger had an even longer range, I think it was 2000m +. Personally I would choose a tiger or panther ;)
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Ralroost Yeah the Tiger could kill a Sherman from 2000+ meters, and a Panther could too. But, the western Allies rarely encountered situations where those ranges came into play. For instance if you look at the Battle of Arracourt, Around 100 Sherman 75's took out a German force consisting of 300 tanks, mostly Panthers, And they did it by not allowing the Germans to take advantage of their tanks superior range and the like.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@Ralroost Jagdpanther; combines a Panther's speed/chassis but with the hitting power of the PaK 43 - at the cost of no turret though :(
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 Indeed- though I am not sure what I said in the first place that you are responding to :S
Ralroost 1 week ago
@Ralroost No no my point was (not that you care or in your own prefference anyways) was that your comment was you'd prefer the Panther and I just meant that the Jagdpanther I reckon personally is even better - its a Panther essentially but sacrifices a turret but with a bigger gun pretty much and abit cheaper...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 Oh now I remember- fair enough, the Jagdpather would be an absolute beast, as long as it wasn't flank, I would assume. I guess it depends if its offensive or defensive fighting you're doing :)
Ralroost 1 week ago
@Ralroost I read the original schematics of the Jagdpanther was meant to be similar to the Panther II; 100mm glacis front, 60-80mm lower hull, 60mm side hull armor and 60mm superstructure armor with 40mm armor rear - though the Panther II was cancelled the compromise was that the Jagdpanther hull would have features of the simplified proposal of the Panther II...
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@Ralroost And yes - very very very serious tactical disadvantage for any Panther or Jagdpanther was the side armor was barely thicker than 50mm in LOS anyways despite the sloping; other than keeping out MG's and some light cannons its not gonna stand up well against rockets, guns or the Sherman 75 for the matter :(
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@TheHIV123 your wrong the firefly is still like the sherman tank that have a 76mm but the different is the length of the gun the firefly have longer cannon than the sherman but it not guaranty that it can destroy the the tiger only the panzer 5 i think
30sectodeath 1 month ago
@30sectodeath isnt the panzer 5 the tiger? or am i wrong?
ScrewFearMe 1 month ago
@ScrewFearMe Pz V (5) Was the Panther. Pz VI (6) was the Tiger and Tiger II
ThePharaohBender 1 month ago
@ScrewFearMe panzer 5 = Panther, panzer 6 = Tiger (and improved Tiger II)
Tanko50 1 month ago
@30sectodeath The 17 pounder was a much higher performing gun than the 76mm. At 1000 meters it could penetrate 131mm of armor which the 76mm gun could not do. If the firefly was APDS, at 500 meters it could (on paper) penetrate the armor on the front of the King Tiger. The 76mm gun was comparable to the 75mm gun on the P4 and the 85mm gun on the T34/85.
The 17pdr was in a totally different league.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@TheHIV123 omg are you dreaming or something maybe you mean the Tiger 1(50% cahnce to penetrate it armor) but if it come to Tiger Royal it armor is thicker that its previews and its a slope armor which mean the armor is been double its size
30sectodeath 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@30sectodeath This means that at 500 meters the 17pdr gun has a good chance to penetrating the armor in the frontal arc of the King Tiger. It also means that it could potentially do the same at 1000 meters.
If you dont believe me look it up, but I am right about this.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@TheHIV123
Except that the APDS for the 17 pounder was dreadfully inaccurate as hell, crews didn't use it at any armoured targetd above 500m as the chance of hitting was low, it also had a nasty tendecy when it struck a slope to simple bounce off.
It is a very powerfull shell but it had a huge nubmer of issues.
Dreachon 4 weeks ago
@Dreachon Yes, the early production APDS shells did have a number of issues, not least of which was its accuracy problem. At also didn't do that much damage when it penetrated for whatever reason. By the end of the war though it had become an accurate shell, though I am not sure they ever fixed the lethality issue.
Its interesting that you say it often bounced off sloped armor, I cant seem to find that said anywhere. On top of that, modern APDS is very effective against sloped armor.
TheHIV123 4 weeks ago
@TheHIV123
I was surprised by it as well still the APDS has gone through many changes since then.
Dreachon 4 weeks ago
@TheHIV123 I don't mean to add irrelevant information but in terms of firepower true the QF17 podr was an excellent Allied AT gun cannon BUT compared to the Sherman 75mm gun the QF17pdr actually was inferior in terms of HE work; as AT gun cannons rely on high velocity and thick shell casing for big propellant charges it comes at the cost of HE shells; as the Allieds pushed on to Germany there were more improvised defnences and bunkers rather than just German heavies or panzers;
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@TheHIV123 And as we know in WWII AT guns with higher velocity would fire a lower amount of HE shot so the same was for the QF17pdr gun despite haivng a slightly bigger caliber than the 75mm guns of the Shermans. They did improve a HE shell for the 17 pdr in 1944 but even so the Sherman's 75mm was better as a general target gun cannon as it didn't need a big propellant charge NOR thicker casing; so it can be argued the Sherman's 75mm was even superior to the Panthers in HE!
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 Yes, the Shermans 75mm gun was an excellent HE weapon, and that why it saw service all the way to the end of the war, because the troops liked them. The reality is that Allied tanks encountered dug in infantry far more than they ever encountered enemy tanks. Only 20-30% of allied tanks were actually destroyed by other tanks in France, and that number my even be lower.
TheHIV123 6 days ago
@TheHIV123 Unfortunately though save the 122mm, ZVEROBOY, QF 17pdr or BS-3 for the matter the 75mm or the standard AP of the 75mm on the Sherman struggled against the frontal 100mm durable armor of the Tiger I. But again HE of the Sherman was potent against soft targets; yes the Russians had superior HE from the 122mm or the ZVEROBOY's 152.4mm ML-20 but certainly the 75mm as we know it was better in HE than higher velocity guns like the QF17pdr, 76mm M1 or I'll bet the Panther's own PaK/KwK 42!
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@TheHIV123 YES of course; I just read The Battle of Berlin where there are photo's of Russian soldiers struggling in the rubble while fanatical Germans desperately tried thier best to hold off; a paragraph described the majority of tanks destroyed (70% or so) were due to Panzerfausts rather than really remaining Panzers for the matter; Russian soldiers in the end just dragged up huge B4, ML-20's or ZVEROBOYS and hammered these dug in defences to smithereens :(
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@TheHIV123 And speaking of the Sherman 75mm gun; you know the M24 Chafee's 75mm M6 gun was remakably almost as powerful as the standard 75mm gun of a Sherman - that shows just how impressive however 'weak' the 75mm American M3 or M6 may be in AP; some useful HE; as the British found out if they wanted to improve HE on thier 6 pdr or 2pdr they had to sacrifce some AP and due to the small turret ring...they had to stick with the QF 75 as there were not enough Sherman Mayflies at times...
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@TheHIV123 And for the Russians naturally while thier AP was not up the standard of the Germans they simply made up for thier arty performance with mass spamming, numbers and some huge HE performance; the ZVEROBOY's HE in particular was very useful against field forts - and the OF-471 of the 122mm gun in the JS-2 or the A19 field gun was potent enough to smash soft targets - anything short of a German heavy tank or strong bunker...
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@Dreachon Which is why you see most modern tanks have armor that is very dramatically sloped (close to 0 degrees) or only very slightly sloped.
TheHIV123 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@30sectodeath Once again, the penetration tables dont lie. At 1000 meters the 17pdr, could penetrate 130mm of 30 degree sloped armor plate. The thickest armor on the Tiger 1 is 102 mm, which means it could be killed at 1000+ metes with eh 17pdr. With an APDS shell the 17pdr could penetrate 208 mm of armour at 457 m and 192 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle. the thickest armor plate is on the King Tiger is 180mm sloped at 40 degrees.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@TheHIV123 Incorrect. The QF17 was not able to penetrate Tiger armor except top or bottom from that range. Possibly a good side or rear shot might penetrate but at 1500m that is unlikely.
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
@0341MarineInfantry "The 17-pounder used two types of anti-tank ammunition. APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition could penetrate 140 mm of armour at 457 metres and 131 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle. APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) could penetrate 208 mm of armour at 457 m and 192 mm at 914 m at a 30 degree angle,[5][6][7] allowing it to penetrate the armour of even the redoubtable King Tiger tank."
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@0341MarineInfantry The tigers Armor was 102mm max, That means that at 1000 meters the firefly could knock out a tiger in its frontal arc, And it would not be a stretch to say that it could probably take one out from 1500 meters since I believe the shell would was still able to penetrate more than 100mm at 1500 meters. Also remember that the penetration data was taken on plate at a 30 degree angle and the tigers armor was not sloped.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
@TheHIV123 Sherman Mayfly 1c had slightly more armor - 89mm on the turret front vs the 76mm on the Sherman. Other than omitting the hull gunner and having a bustle for the radio it pretty much was still an M4A4 with the QF 17 pdr...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@Ralroost So what tank design was "ripped off" by the Allies?
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
@0341MarineInfantry When I said that I was thinking of a lot of the French tank design after the war. A lot of the hull designs mimicked the King tiger, they used maybach engines, and even in one case with no clear reason, borrowed the overlapping road wheel/torsion bar suspension from panther/tiger/KT.
Ralroost 1 month ago
@breakingbisley The Firefly was a 76mm gun.
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
@breakingbisley The Allies tanks were not really that inferior. By far the most common German tank, the Panzer 4 was equivalent to the Sherman 75 and the T 34, and I would argue that the P4 was worse than either of those tanks. Of course, the German fielded a wide range of heavies which outclassed the medium tanks fielded by the Allies, but then, you are comparing apples to oranges. And then the Allies fielded their own heavies which were just as good as the Germans.
TheHIV123 1 month ago
Michael Wittmann put him in a sherman tank and let him
attack a column of tiger tanks and we will see how good he was.
lets face it here all of the allied tanks in WW2 were SHIT.
lightpoacher 1 month ago
Kickin ass in europe as always,youre the best michael wittmann,he's is the reason why the americans dont dare to make a shitty ass hollywood film about american tank aces destroying 10000000000000000000 german tanks a second
strudel89 1 month ago 3
was there ever a sherman tank ace crew? or what cause i search sherman tank ace and it only comes up with this
AlleyCatGhost 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Germany never started world war. British Empire and France declared war ON Germany. Economics blockades on Germany by allies began well before 1939.
86razva 1 month ago
@86razva WOW! Could you please revise history just a little more. One more post and you'll have Germany winning. Germany attacked Poland, Poland was friends with Britain and France. Germany started it.
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
The narrator sounds like David Cameron!
SpartanPict 1 month ago
Tankers - bravest troops in WW2 IMO, knowing what a hideous fate might await them.
crapatev 1 month ago
THE ERIKA WAS GERMAN WHORE '' 88 ''
unfukkkmee 1 month ago
There are several reasons why the Allies did not use heavy large equipment ( for the most part ), and not the least of which was logistics. You could ship parts to assemble far more Shermans than you could a Tiger equivalent in the same size ship. The similiarity of parts allowed for much quicker re-assembly and field repair as well.
There was also Allied tank doctrine which was entirely different.
Can you see floating a Tiger tank off an LCT on Juno Beach...?
jordan390a 1 month ago
@jordan390a Good post...you are correct. Except that all Shermans were shipped complete and did not require assembly.
0341MarineInfantry 1 month ago
Hitler should have stopped production of Panzer IV and put the resources on the Panzer V and then King Tiger, also he should have minimized the funding to the Rocket projects and rather mass produced jet fighters to fight allied planes. He then should have attacked Soviet Union in 1940 as planned and let the Italians suffer in Greece and he also should have sold a few military weapons to Italy and Japan for them to develope their own versions. Hitler should also helped Japan with conquest China
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn Should have?
Laevi1337 1 month ago
@Laevi1337 I'm equally appalled. Thank God the Allied won. Germany "should have" never started the war to begin with.
vinskiize 1 month ago
@vinskiize Germany never started world war. British Empire and France declared war ON Germany. Economics blockades on Germany by allies began well before 1939.
SpartanPict 1 month ago
@SpartanPict Oh go take your dumb.as-shit Nazi revisionism and choke on it. Even the German don't believe such crap any more, and believe me I knew a lot of siegheilers in my day, including some in-law families. Germany started the war. Period. No one asked Adoof to invade CZ, Austria, or Poland. He did it because he was a moron.
Malaka57 1 month ago
@Malaka57 for the record they really have to invade austria...
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Ralroost I guess I'll choose to laugh out loud at this point. When I lived in Vienna, the locals would often make snide comments about Germans. My reaction was always: "Ah yes, for the Viennese, Hitler is a German and Beethoven an Austrian..." Lucky I am a big fellow...
Malaka57 1 month ago
@Malaka57 Are you sure you meant to reply to me? I am not sure what that has to do with subs taking blueprints to japan.
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Ralroost oops, sorry i see I responded to two ppl and read the wrong one (fail). Why are you laughing out loud..? are you mocking me or the austrians?
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Ralroost Not mocking, But did not have to invade Austria can be interpreted as a joke... The Austrians were quite amenable to being taken over... They did not lie back and think of England... But I also ranted for a moment to some revisionist there. I find them quite brainless.
Malaka57 1 month ago
@Malaka57 I am slightly confused as to why it would be interpreted as a joke?
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Malaka57 didnt really*
Ralroost 1 month ago
@SpartanPict I think it was Germany who invaded Poland thus forcing France and the UK to declare war on Germany. Economics blockades were there for a reason. Germanys intentions weren't a mystery.
vinskiize 1 month ago
@SMGJohn He should have crushed the English at Dunkirk and take them prisioners. And not declare war to the US, that was a mistake.
qvoprimum 1 month ago 2
@SMGJohn Japan could have easily developed heavy tanks like Germany if it wanted, the thing is they didn't see a need to. Italy on the other hand was just a parasite to Germany, being more of a burden than help.
With regards to China, how could Germany have helped Japan? Besides being in the "Axis" what exactly did the two have in common?
Ravensteinzh 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh Germany shouldn't have provided help to China, and granted more technology to Japan like sending a few Panthers
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn Germany helped China, but before the all out war between China and Japan.
The second part of the statement is hilarious. How exactly could Germany send a few Panthers to Japan?
Ravensteinzh 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh impose maybe through space
NewSoviet507 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh Oh? Still stuck in the 1840s?? Never heard of transportation?? You could transport it with ships, that would be hard. You can use submarines, you could drive them over India. You could also possible fly them over. See that wasn't so hard now was it, or hey just send the blueprints with a postal jet airplane.
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn If you honestly think Germany could have delivered Panther tanks to Japan in 1943, then you are a moron.
Look on a map and check the basics of the second world war and you'd find out Germany and Japan would have found it absolutely impossible to deliver to each other Panthers. How can Germany fly parts of panthers and blue prints to Japan when both of them found it extremely hard to even prevent their aircraft from being downed in later parts of the war?
Ravensteinzh 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh Actually thats how Japan got the german designs for their jet engine- two subs simply carried them back to japan. Though one was destroyed by british bombers.
Ralroost 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh Your calling me a moron when your retarded enough to think the war was like in video games? Sorry to spoil it for you champ but Germany was already having a panther tanks ready for delivery to Japan in 1944 it was returned by Japan to Germany as Germany needed everything to fight USSR. And no, Germany went to Japan many times in WW2. Submarines where common transportation but also flying supplies. You forgot that Germany flew tons of supplies to China in WW2
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn You are funny because you think it was possible for Germany to ship Panther tanks to Japan to help them fight a losing war when Germany desperately needed every tank they had. Lack of common sense obviously is quite common on YouTube amongst people of lower intelligence.
Ravensteinzh 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh "Japan reportedly bought a single Panther Ausf. D for reverse engineering purposes in 1943. However the tank apparently never actually made it to Japan. The Panther's sloped armor and turret design nevertheless did influence the design of Japan's last wartime tank prototypes; the medium Type 4 Chi-To and heavy Type 5 Chi-Ri.[122]" It's from Wikipedia, think again kid. A transport ship disquiced as an allied ship could easilly penetrate the defences...
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn You just killed your entire argument with that source, if it is credible.
You clearly stated Germany should ship a few Panthers to Japan to help with Japan's war effort and you bring up a source that only proves that it didn't make it there.
Yet again you show the same logical fallacies in your argument, putting words in my mouth that I never even suggested.
Ravensteinzh 1 month ago
@Ravensteinzh No you miss understand completely. Your argued that it was impossible to ship anything between Japan and Ger