Nice way to prove your short sightedness, the sherman was a good tank, it was actually better than the T-34 despite what soviet fanboys claim, look at engamenent in korea between shermans and T-34/85, it wasn't the t-34 that was victorious.
Funny as sofar the only person posting retarded replies is you, you posted absolute crap with regards to the sherman displaying a complte and utter lack of understanding the tank itself.
I understnd it just fine, beeing short sighted has more thn 1 meaning but it seems you fail to understand that as well next to your lack of understanding tanks of WW2.
More that you made a dumb and unfounded claim and when confronted with evidence that you have no conuter to you resort to drawing away the attention by attacking the text that a person of who english is not the first language.
If anyone should learn about foreign history it is you, given you have no idea at all about the tanks, you know nothing of the shermans strenght and weaknesses and you most certainly do not know of the T-34 weaknesses.
The only person qwho is making an ass of himself is you.
By the way the best tanks in the Korean War were the British Centurions. There were fewer of them but they were easily the best tanks employed by any side during that conflict.
A reliable workhouse that was easy to work with, easy to repair yet it get's dragged by idiots liek you who have no clue or people like mr. Attwater in this video who despite beeing a so-called expert on weapons still falls to old and outdated myths.
Burning had nothing to due with the fuel but with unprotected ammo having a tendency of catching fire, this was later correct by wet stowage, still way better than russian ammo which had the tendency to explode.
When it was introduced the Sherman was actually considered a good tank and could combat the Panzer III although the newer Panzer IVs with the L/43 gave it problems.
It was outclassed by the Tiger and Panthers but so were the T-34s (even T-34/85s). The later Sherman 76s were roughly on a par with the T-34/85s.
And it's true the Shermans did beat the T-34/85s in Korea although American tank warfare experience and crew training would have been a factor too.
The M3 75mm was good enuogh to tackle the most common german vehicles, the panzer IV and StuG III, later models with the M1 76mm surpassed both of these.
Also, fear factor - the Sherman was a pretty tall tank and seeing one roll towards you would probably scare you shitless. Someone actually described it as intimidating even when compared to a M1 Abrams. Standard infantry scarcely stood a chance unless at close range where their Panzerfausts were more accurate.
Seems like people forget about the Sherman's wet stowage that came into place later in its service.
The problem is that people always forget that comparing the Sherman to the Tiger tank is something unfair. However, if we compare the Sherman to the T-34/85, we can see the Sherman has better armor, armament, crew comfort, and optics.The T34 did have cost on its side though, and most of the armor was sloped compared to only the front and turret (M4A3E8) on the Sherman.
@Dreachon In the later versions, definitely. Soviet steel tended to be hard and brittle, shattering on impact. The later model Shermans had homogeneous rolled steel that was capable of deflecting a Panzershreck round if it was shot at an angle. However, the early M4s' cast armor was nothing to brag about.
IMO, if we judge WW2 tanks purely on their performance for their class, and not on the circumstances in their battlefield, the Sherman would have been one of the best medium tanks.
Well during WWII cast armour was weaker than welded armour of the same thickness, casting in those days was that well checked for flaws and many bubbles or impurities would take place within the cast pieces.
them to ricochet up off the concrete,blacktop, cobblestone,etc into the underbelly of the tank, where the armor is often thinnest. it was a more popular way to atack panthers and king tigers from the air as well since they didnt have the massive grilles over the radiator/fuel tanks like the tiger.
And all of that is nothing more than lies and myth created by pilots, because of their angle of atatck their MG and cannons would actually hit the side, front or rear of a tank.
The ricochet is anotehr just another blatant lie as nothing of it is true, the bottom of a tank is not a thinh sheet but often 20 to 40mm thick as it needs to protect it's bottom against mines.
A bullet that ricochet off the street would have been deformed and lost most of it's power.
if german tank commanders "always" drove with their hatches open then there would be no need for periscopes on the commanders hatch. most of the tanks that were disabled by aircraft in WWII were taken out by firing the 50 cal guns (i believe they were 20mm cannon on typhoons) through the engine grilles and disabling the engine, getting a mobility kill. A P-47 pilot said they would also (if the tank was on a good, hard road) that they could fire the rounds toward the botom of the tank, getting
@Dreachon bahahahahah do you really believe ALL german tank commanders had the balls to have themselves out the hatches all the time? not likely at all, read more than two or three accounts before you make assumptions. and no, the biggest piece of that shell casing that would be left would be no bigger than a mans palm. that BRASS casing would desintigrate far worse than an UNDETONATED STEEL rocket. if a cast steel projectile is ripped apart by a charge do you really think brass would survive?
Experienced commanders did, I think if ayone should do more reading it's you as your going off myths to support the outdated and outlandish claims made by pilots.
Yeah so much myth spouted about how allied pilots took out German tanks.
The reality is that comparatively few German tanks were destroyed by allied air attacks compared to other losses.
In Normandy (the theatre most closely associated with allied air power causing havoc for German armour) only between 5% to 8% of German tanks were destroyed by allied planes.
laying next to a tiger cannot be trusted, especially if the ammo cooked off in the tiger as you say, there would be no shell casings. have you ever watched a round cook off before? if a round goes off in a gun the casing is fine, if not in the breach, the projectile hardly moves and the casing desintigrates. kinda hard to have a shell casing from cooked off ammo next to the tank it blew up.
to look for something in a report that wont be there. most tank commanders would be inside the tanks for combat...contrary to popular belief not many panzer commanders stayed out of the hatch during combat, its kinda hard to notice aircraft through a turret hatch isnt it? "a long hollow tube" could be anything...a german mess kit, a shell casing, the test tube in which you were created, a rocket launch tube jettisoned from an american aircraft, etc. a description of what a french farmer finds
Dude, german tanks commander would allways drive with their hatches open, closing your hatches was trouble as your vision would be limited, german commander kept the top hatch open for as long as possible.
@Dreachon are you aware that a large majority of destroyed vehicles on the ground were reported by AAF and RAF personnel on the ground? they were sent into combat as liasons to measure and record the combat effectiveness of close air support, and pilots were NEVER given credit for kills (air to air or air to ground) until eith the gun cameras, recon photos, or ground personnel confirmed it. pilots reported when they "engaged" enemy ground targets in after action reports, so it will do no good
And pilots made over exagerated claims during their sorties over Normandy, the US and UK both had research teams on the ground who inspected the wrecks of german armour, do you know what was the result of these studies, that only 7% of the german tanks lost in normandy were due to direct close air support.
To give nice example of the Typhoon's rocket, during Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs
Here's what the research teams found:
In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs
Our poor little Sherman was an Infantry Support Vehicle. It needed the higher velocity 76mm Gun (about 15% of later model Shermans had the high velocity gun). A major advantage the Sherman DID have was the majority that were "knocked out" were repaired and put back into action. They were a simple, mass produced tank that was also easy to repair. Remember, we DID beat the German Panthers and Tigers because we could produce them in mass numbers.
didnt even have a "no fly zone" or a strict sector to stick to. they were often allowed to free roam and engage targets of oppurtunity. the fire selector switches on P-47s and Typhoons could fire two rounds at a time minimum (one from each wing to keep the plane balanced), meaning one could have hit and one missed. and besides, there is a massive difference between an 88mm projectile and a plane fired rocket, you cannot mistake the two.
Dude, just get this into your stubborn head, what the found was the hollow shellcasing, the part that hold the powder to fire the shell, this far bigger than the actual projectile.
it was not a rocket as it was described as a long hollow tube.
FIREPOWER better, it does not keep that 88 on the tiger from cutting through it like butter. No forces know what exct crew knocked out Wittmanns crew, therefore any claim that a tank crew yook him out is null and void. "Aircraft not in the area" fighter and attack planes are not like bombers, pilots do not check maps every few minutes to check their position. Attack planes in WWII were used on a "seek and destroy" basis, basically fly around, find the enemy, and destroy them. often times they
column of them would have been able to stop his attack at Villers-Bocage. instead it was a camouflaged, ambushing anti-tank gun that disabled his tank. American and Canadian tank column passed stopped british troops and vehicle crews drinking tea on quite a few occasions. I am from America and i know how shitty the Sherman was, i will admit it. Just the gun is upped to 76.2mm (an astounding 1.2mm bigger than the standard gun) with a longer barrel does not make the tank better, it make the
To further shoot down this absurd concept, no enemy tanks were claimed to have been engaged or destroyed by allied pilots in that area, extensieves studies in the archives of the RAF 2nd tactical airforce make this perfecty clear.
Then we have eye-witness account by the german and allied tankers that took part in the fighting that no planes were there.
Alfred Bahlo, Hans Dollinger, Hans Höflinger, Doctor Rabe, Captain Boardman, Trooper Ekins and Major Radley-Walters
@Dreachon then explain the claims that the tanks penetrated the top armor of the tank? the only way that could have happened was if the allied tanks were firing down from an elevated position, which they were not. which means that either the tanks were destroyed from the air or with indirect artillery fire.
not having tea time? that explains how Wittmann demolished an entire British tank coulmn before they could even react...if the sherman crews were actually in their tanks then a whole
gun they would have had a tough time penetrating any area that would hve caused an explosion to blow the turret off. the allied units also claimed to have penetrated the armor on toip of the hull...kinda hard to do when you arent firing from an elevated position.
At 1000m the 17 pounder will penetrate 125mm of armour sloped at 30 degree from vertical, a tiger has a max of 100mm flat armour att he front.
And this is just with a standerd APCBC shot, nothing fancy liek an APDS.
It has been proven that the Canadians delivered the killshot as Wittmann was at 150m of them and the holes in his tiger corresponded to their position.
None british aircraft were anywere near the battle at that time.
@Dreachon i'd like to see proof of that. seeing as how an undetonated rocket from a typhoon was found near Wittmans tiger, i doubt it was canadian and british tank forces...especially since the British were still enjoying tea time like the British 7th armored was when he tore them a new asshole. The tank crews that "destroyed" wittmanns group claimed to have penetrated the armor from over 800meters, not possible for the shermans 75mm gun. and even if they were the Firefly sherman with the 76.2mm
It was not an undetonated rocket but an empty shell from the 88, the fact that only a single of this "rocket" was found says enough as pilots would fire a salov of them.
Also neither of the 2 groups were having teatime, they were well aware of the germans even before the germans knew what hit them.
Also the Canadians were as close as 150m from Wittmann's Tiger tank and at 800m a firefly will penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger I with ease.
@Borrynixon Correct, American tanks didnt need 6 reverse gears, we dont follow the "Retreat first, engage later" military doctrine like the french army lol
Typhoons and P-47 thunderbolts destroyed alot of tanks in normandy. in fact, Micheal Wittmans tiger (as well as himself) was destroyed by Typhoons in Normandy.
this tank is less effective in europe but it's very effective in the pacific war.this tank is just a disaster to the japanese.their shit tanks are just no match to the sherman.
The Allies had air superiority - the preferred way to deal with German tanks was to use planes not inferior US/British tanks. The Soviets had no such luxury - till late 1943 the Germans had air superiority.
Except that it was also the least effectief, following detailed investigations by both british and amrican research teams on the ground and closely looking at german wrecks they made the following conclusion, just less than 100 german fully tracked AFV were lost due to hits by aircraft launched ordnance.
Please disregard my previous comment, I thought you were referring to megafleetwoodmac, my apologies for that.
But to correct you, no Typhoons did very little killing of german big tanks, do you know that off all the tiger tanks in normandy only 13 were lost to air, 7 of these were due to massieve area carpet bombing.
@MegaFleetwoodmac you are just an idiot from lalaland who have no knowledge about tanks.the US have one of the best tanks in the world and ur country is no match at all
Yes they did you troll, now go back into your cave as you know shit, the numbers you post are just absurd and prove nothing but your stupidity.
Over 50.000 sherman were produced, 54550 T-34 were produced during the war, not this so incredibly stupid 100.000 you claim, go home to your cave you troll.
So how dumb are you really givne that sofar you posted nothing but nonsense.
T-34 production for WWII, all variants is 54550 produced, sherman all variants also goes over the 50000 produced, further sherman production didn´t start until 1942.
@McSpizzy -- Well a 75mm high velocity cannon on the Mk IV at the get go would of helped and even better w/ more tanks, as you say. The Germans didn't have a grasp of mass production as we understand it today. Even 1500 Tiger Panzers produced couldn't compete with the allied numbers.
Of course launching a summer campaign to invade Russia is a bad idea.
@McSpizzy Not sure where you heard such an idea, but its not true at all. The US, from 1942-1945 lost 7,000 AFV in Europe/Africa, while the Soviets lost 96,500 AFV.
This is why the M4 had been so easy to dig into a defensive position, while the T-34 was notoriously difficult to do anything but hide in bushes with a few sandbags, or an individual trench designed for it. Cover had to be made to fit the T-34, where as the M4 could simply make do with the many hills in Europe. That combined with the diesel engine which was again Soviet climate specific.
@XxxSakura101 Excuse me... this is impossible to comprehend... You think that a hull-down position is the only defensive position. If you are talking about using a physical obstacles then yes, bigger depression angle was giving a Sherman an advantage in this case (combined with an overall disadvantage of taller tank... yes, everything is a compromise in a tank). But T-34 were operating from tank-trenches many times during the war. Were those trenches more difficult to dig for T-34 than Sherman?!
@XxxSakura101 You have an American Flag as your profile pic,I can't discuss anything serious with you.You are obviously too proud to be American.You like this crap just because it was made in America.
@DarkBlitzkrieg46 Your joking, because i like my history all of my study over the years is suddenly invalid? Please, if that would be true- why would i also think the M1 shouldn't be in the list? Or any modern piece of equipment for that mater. I go by historical facts, not popular history. Point out one instance in my statement that had been incorrect.
....the internet. He has one article called "I Remember" which goes into some good details about the M4A2(diesel version) and how it compared to the T-34. For the most part, he has pretty favorable things to say about it but of course there's also some issues. He also has a book out, although it's a bit on the expensive side, but it does go into quite a lot of detail on how the Russians used the Sherman in battle. Some very interesting info to say the least.
@mako88sb Exactly. Soviets hadn't same problems with their Shermans, because they had only diesel version. Nicknames like "lighter Ronson" were given to petrol powered Shermans. Since Soviets hadn't them, they couldn't tell something bad about it.
Generally, Russians have positive estimation about Sherman. Among all tanks delivered to the USSR by Lend-Lease, Sherman tank was the best suitable for combat. The rest British and American tanks were combat useless.
After the war Soviet tankers had a saying: "Which tank is the best? Tiger for defence. T-34 for attack. Sherman to serve with." And that's the truth. All soviet tanksmen, who had a chance to serve with Sherman, were underlining first of all interior space of Sherman, white paint inside and leather seats. Comfort of T-34 was minimally sufficient.
Despite having same inferiority in numbers on Eastern and Western Fronts, German tankers were considering T-34 more dangerous opponent.
typical American's thinking when it comes to any vehicles, even a TANK must have plenty of head&leg rooms, otherwise U.S tank crew men may refuse to sit in and drive it... :P
@jsDX11 One day you will realize that strategically, Shermans were overwhelmingly better than any tank Germans could ever produce. And since wars are won strategically, this should be at where T-34 is. In fact, Sherman tanks were better than T-34 in almost every ways.
I fully agree with you on this, the sherman does perform far better, even much of the old sayings that the russians didn't like them at all seem to be propaganda based lies, people like Dmitiy Loza loved them.
@BitnikGr Oh you ignorant person. If you know a single thing about T-34 you would realize that that T-34 had a horrible manuverability. It actually had to slow down if it was ever going to turn due to horrid transmissions.
The Sherman tank actually has better armor if you count the slope that Sherman tanks has,
The main 85mm gun had bigger calibur but the 76mm gun of Sherman had about the same capability and was much more accurate than 85mm.
@dlxowns322 Maneuverability consists of more than 2 dozens parameters. Saying only one fact about slowing down in turns doesn't mean "horrible" maneuverability in any way. You think that tall Sherman could turn easily on fast speeds? Even lower tanks of 50-60-70-80s can tumble over while turning at high speeds (more than 40-50km/h).
German Tiger commander wrote in his memoirs that he couldn't turn his turret fast enough in order to keep aiming a T-34 running across the field. That's how ...
@dlxowns322 ... "horrible" T-34 maneuverability was. And I even hadn't started with passability in mud and swamps. Belorussian offensive was successful because hundreds of T-34s passed through swamps.
Sloped armor... is that invention of Sherman? Or T-34 is famous for its INNOVATING sloped armor?
I hadn't read anywhere German tankers saying that their rounds were ricocheting from Sherman armor.
Sherman's frontal armor equivalent varied from 51-108mm. T-34 had 90mm. Where is the better armor?
@BitnikGr My point was not that Shermans could turn quickly in high speed. My point was that T-34 could not turn as well as shermans could in high speed due to their transmission.
It is true that early Shermans weren't as good at crossing muddy grounds but it was quickly fixed when wider tracks with duckbill was adopted.
@BitnikGr T-34 had armor of 90mm when calculated with the slope(about 60 degree). Without calculating the slope, it had 45mm of armor. Sherman, in the other hand, had 51mm of armor when calculated WITHOUT the slope but when calculated WITH the slope(about 56 degree), it is about 91. And when you calculate later versions like E8, it goes to about 112mm. Who has the better armor?
@dlxowns322 Correct. But again, 90 and 91-112 is not a big difference. 20mm is a difference of several steps at distances up to 1200m. Can this be called a "dramatically better protection"? Doesn't the fact of using of fire-hazardous engines reduces that level of protection. Tank protection is also a complex term including many parameters and not just armor equivalent of body. And we even didn't considered sides of their turret, where T-34 has same slight edge, like Sherman has in body.
@BitnikGr The reason why rounds ricocheted from T-34 was because gunss that initially engaged T-34 were from early german tanks or anti tanks guns which were usually 37mm or 50mm guns. Rounds ricocheting off from T-34 rarly happened after long 75mm gunned tanks were brought in. Shermans, on other hand, faced tanks usually armed with long 75mm guns as soon as they were brought into European Theatre.
@dlxowns322 Not true. German tankers on Tigers (88mm) were writing about rounds bouncing of T-34 turrets, especially at distances over 700m. I've read several memoirs about Battle of Kursk, where they were stating this.
@BitnikGr In fact, during Africa campaign, Shermans could easily withstand early german tank and anti-tanks guns, which also faced T-34 is early stages, with little trouble.
@dlxowns322 Not true again. German antitank guns and T-III and T-IV were clearly inferior to T-34 in 1941. There is a great documentary serie with a title "The Great War" with English subtitles. I'll find a link for you. (It is not the same with famous "Great War" by BBC about WWI).
Majority of T-34 losses in 1941 were not even combat losses.
Lack of communications on tanks, obsolete tactics, incompetent commanders from battalion level to Stalin himself - these were reasons of T34 losses in 41.
At 7:00 it is described how Soviets lost the whole 6th Mechanized Corp of 1000 tanks including 350 KV and T-34s. Simply because they run out of fuel and Soviet rear lines were already smashed.
Meaning that units, which were resisting successfully at first days of war eventually run out of ammo and fuel and had to destroy their tanks and retreat back, simply because they couldn't be supplied.
Only T-26s and BT-7s had heavy combat losses those days.
@BitnikGr I don't recall myself saying "dramatically better protection" about armor but true, armor was not significantly better in Sherman. However, I have to disagree on "fire-hazardous engines" because the cause of fire in shermans, in fact in any tank, was due to ammunition. In fact, shermans, panzer 4s and T-34 all had about equal chance of fire when penetrated which is about 80%. However, Sherman adopted the wet ammo rack which drastically decreased the chance of fire.
@dlxowns322 Only ammunition? And gasoline engines has nothing to do with it?
You know that diesel is much harder to catch fire comparing to petrol and aviation kerosene. Only temperatures of shaped charge rounds and special incendiary rounds can set fire on diesel. Meanwhile petrol engine catches fire just like that.
@BitnikGr Yes, your right of course that gasoline engines do contribute more to fires then diesel but as dixowns322 states, ammunition cook-offs was the main cause of tank brew-ups. The Yanks as far as I know where the only ones to alleviate this by using wet storage. The result: 10-15% WS M4's burned compared to 60-80% for non-WS. I believe the roominess of the M4 is a big part of the reason they where able to add WS. If your not familar with Dmitriy Loza, you should check for him on.....cont
@BitnikGr It wasn't only the ammunition but the engine in Sherman tank was designed so that it would rarly catch on fire when damaged. If the engine did cause a fire, it will not cause a burst of flame as ammunition explotion would and gave the crew more than enough time to escape. Infact, when wet ammo rack was adopted, only 10-15% of sherman caught on fire after being damaged.
@BitnikGr When considering the fact that 60% of panthers and 80% of tiger burned up after being penetrated, you can see that engine had very little to do with Shermans burning up.
Infact, many tanks during WW2 and after utilzed gasoline engines.
@dlxowns322 "Infact, many tanks during WW2 and after utilzed gasoline engines."
Not in the USSR. USSR hadn't enough high octane petrol. But they had more than enough of diesel fuel. Even if they had any tank design using gasoline engine in pre-war years, that would be an exception of the rule.
@BitnikGr The T-34 had a negative gun depression of only -4, meaning it was near impossible to take advantage over elevated surfaces, or even aim to high places. Its low profile allowed it to be small (if still large) target on the open plains, but as we saw in non Soviet Europe the tank suffered for terrible visibility and lacked the ability to see over obstacles. Combined with few radios, the tank had to rely almost exclusively on surrounding infantry to figure out whats going on around it.
@XxxSakura101 In your previous comment you said that T-34 wasn't designed for combat in Europe or desert. This, first of all, refers to maneuverability. How everything you wrote now are related to maneuverability in any way? Once you name hills as not suitable position for T-34, then you name open plains... which is it? Yes, it had low angle of depression... (all low profile tanks have this problem), but why exactly it couldn't "even aim at high places"? Since it had same elevation +25dgr?!
@BitnikGr the M4 and T-34 are very visibility designed to match the terrain they had been expected to fight in. The T-34 had little need to see over obstacles or be effective in hilly terrain, because the Soviet Union had consisted of primarily the Ukrainian plains, and the Belarus and Novogorian swamps and forests. Their tanks could afford to hug the ground well, as visibility wasn't an issue, or was gun depression. However the US tanks needed these qualities (not so much in Africa)
@BitnikGr Gasoline was far more effective than diesel (which is why everyone but the Soviets used it) but diesel was also far more resistant to the cold, which is what Russia was infamous for.
@BitnikGr The survability was about the same in early Sherman but after the adoptation of a wet ammorack, the survability of Sherman became dramatically better than a T-34
@dlxowns322 "dramatically"? Don't you think that this is a plain exaggeration for both tanks which had to cover significant distance in order to fight heavy German tanks?
There were NO DRAMATICAL differences between these tanks in anything! A bit better here, a bit worse there... but no dramatical differences!
the rankings don't make any sense. The T34 and the M4 sherman were both very similar in armor and firepower. I can easily prove that between 1943 -1945, more t34's were knocked out than shermans were, yet the T34 gets a better ranking? The T34 was just introduced a bit earlier when tanks were still developing. If the sherman was intorduced in 1939-1940, it would of been a monster to the germans like the T34 was.
True, the sherman was pretty good when it first was designed but it sadly arrived at a point in which the germans were already some steps ahead when it came to gun and armour design.
Yes more T-34 was knocked out, but armored battle in the West was just a wind breeze in comparison with those huge battles in the East, thats why they lost more, T-34 had a superior design compared to Sherman.
And Sherman was never and could never become a monster against them German tanks, they were superior in everything, komunication, armor, artillery, engineering and personell.
@MrCastodian German tanks? Panzer Mk. III is a tank and it stand no chance against the M4. The M4A3E2 (152mm) had more better armor than the Tiger I (100mm) or Panther (120mm), but American strategic thinkers held back, resulting few of them to be produced and too late to see actual combat experience. The M1 76mm on the M4A3E2 is weaker than the Tiger I's 88mm and Panther's 75mm. However, with special shells, most of which are given to TD, the M1 can penetrate both German heavies from the front.
@MrCastodian It is a tank and have a tank role. Which is infantry support and several M4A3E2 were equipped with M1 76mm. The M1 cannon is design for anti-tank warfare. The early Panzer III and IV models were armed with short barrel cannons design for infantry support. Both are label as tank as well.
@MrCastodian Have searched for info about this and find some new info.
Fact of armor and the gun is about as you said, but that it was used to attack bunkers, fortified and so on.
Then that the cannon had some problems (imbalance) and had to be shortened, which reduced penetration.
And the cannon as you described (M1) was mounted in the second Sherman models with good results but the Tungsten amunitionen was unusual and only few unit got it and in a relatively few each Tank.
Succes? The sherman didn't have succes...the deal is, for every tank the Nazi's build the Americans would build 15 shermans. They just couldn't keep up. I think it hardly deserves a place in this list at all.
@CyclonicTuna023 That my friend is what you call a success. War is not about fighting 1:1, it is about overwhelming your foe with force and crushing them. In a war it does not matter if you lose more as long as you can wear out your enemy faster than they can wear you out. Its the tactic that won the Civil War and the Vietnam War.
BTW. the kill ratio of German tank to Allied tank was about 1.5:1 and considering the fact that allied had way more tanks, Germans were utterly crushed.
the funny thing is that the one who drives it also count, in 1967 and before we were stuck to shermans and we were outnumbered while the arabs had much more soviet tanks who were also much bigger, heavier, better armoured and bigger guns, these soviet tanks were better than tiger tanks, despite all this we managed to defeat the arabs in tank battles, oh and in 1967 we added a french 100mm cannon to the sherman
this piece of shit was one of the biggest crew deathtraps to ever serve on a battlefield. it hada punny 50MM protection which gave light tanks a chance to knock it out. it ran on gasoline unlike other tanks, thats why they called it a fucking tommy cooker, it would explode from the first shot, it was'nt "highly mobile" it had narrow tracks which often got stuck in mud, it was'nt cheap, how can a tank be fucking cheap, it was the producers who were rich, how did this junk get in the list?
@Dreachon no, dorkie, panzers and several other tanks dident achieve renown by using gasoline that explodes like a bomb when hit, it used diesel. fool
this junk does'nt deserve any award or record as it was on of the most dangerous tanks to fight in in the war with a puny 50MM frontal armor protection gave light guns a good chance to knock out this piece of garbage, the sherman ran on gasoline unlike other tanks, thats why they called it a tommy cooker, it was'nt highly mobile, it had narrow tracks which often got stuck in mud, its gun was a piece of shit good for nothing 75MM which merely scratched the paintjob over the PZIV/panther
hahaha, so this piece o shit makes the list, but not the panther.
And they even have the audacity to make it look better for it being used to clear mines and other unorthodox uses, when fact is, they had to come up with some use for it, it couldnt fight other tanks
@revolrz22 fact remains, compared to its contemporarys, this tank was horrible, it was basically a tracked infantry support cannon, as such im sure it had its uses. but in tankwarfare it was shit, and should not make the list, shit is shit, even if u pile it high. Take a bike and a slingshot, call it a tank, and massproduce 10 million tanks, and it would make this list.
@GertOgren It wasn't intended to go toe to toe with other tanks. That was the job of towed anti-tank guns tank destroyers like the M10, M18, and M36 under US Army doctrine.
@GertOgren How so? Define its 'contemporaries.' Because when it came out, it dominated Pz.Kpfw IV F, and it wasn't until the KwK 40 was common place in panzer units that it became outgunned, which is a gap it bridged in later models. It always had more armor than either the T-34 or Pz.kpfw IV. It had a stabilizer, which the others did not. It had instruments for indirect fire, which the others did not. See a pattern, here?
Well the biggest problem is that they are comparring apples and oranges. How you can go from 1918 to 2011 in comparing tanks is really silly. Atwater and Nushauser konw this too.
@Trisscarro World War Two tanks deserve their own category. There has not been an industrial war on that level since then. Yes I understand that the Sherman went on to fight in many wars like Korea and with Israel, but seriously how can you compare it to any US tank built in the 1950s? The M46 was way beyond the Sherman in many ways.
2:07 looks like a mushroom cloud haha
mrsupaflymoosie 6 days ago
Why is the M4 Sherman even here? It's one of the worst tanks in history.
It was only capable of beating the shitty Japanese counterparts during WW2.
RaitoYagami88 1 week ago
@RaitoYagami88
Nice way to prove your short sightedness, the sherman was a good tank, it was actually better than the T-34 despite what soviet fanboys claim, look at engamenent in korea between shermans and T-34/85, it wasn't the t-34 that was victorious.
Dreachon 1 week ago
@Dreachon
Excessive patriotism.
FIrst of all, no one "won" Korea.
Even if you want to argue that there was a clear winner, it sure as hell wasn't because of the sherman's participation.
RaitoYagami88 6 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
Again short sightedness, I'm not from the US, had you bothered to read my profile you would have known, I do know your from Canada.
Also who said anything about winning the conflict ,the point is that shermans beat T-34/85 tanks.
Dreachon 6 days ago
@Dreachon
You keep using that phrase.
I do not think you know what it means.
Short sightedness doesn't mean "you disagree with me."
It actually means "lacking foresight."
Being able to anticipate future events and objectives has no bearing on my ability to evaluate tanks from 50 years ago.
Truth is, shermans didn't beat the T34s.
Stop pulling "facts" out of your ass.
I don't really see why you're worshiping a patently inferior American tank, seeing as you're not even a national.
RaitoYagami88 6 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
You are short sighted in that you can't pull your haed out of whatever soviet propaganda you been stuck in.
And the Truth is sherman did beat T-34, they were also highly regarded by the soviet crews who fought in them, people like Dmitriy Loza for instance.
My facts are true and the one pulling stuff from his ass is you in your denial, I'm not worshipping it either but I do recognize it for what it is.
Dreachon 6 days ago
@Dreachon
That's not what short sighted means.
Learn to use vocabulary properly before you post your retarded replies.
RaitoYagami88 5 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
Funny as sofar the only person posting retarded replies is you, you posted absolute crap with regards to the sherman displaying a complte and utter lack of understanding the tank itself.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@Dreachon
You fail to understand the English language and you're calling me retarded?
What a joke.
RaitoYagami88 5 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
I understnd it just fine, beeing short sighted has more thn 1 meaning but it seems you fail to understand that as well next to your lack of understanding tanks of WW2.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@Dreachon
Your use of the word is incorrect and not among the proper definitions of "short sighted."
Go look it up in the dictionary you fucking retard.
RaitoYagami88 5 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
Oh what's the matter, not having anything to defend your stupid arguments, how sad.
Dreachon 5 days ago
@Dreachon No, dumbass. I'm tired of someone who doesn't speak English properly.
RaitoYagami88 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
More that you made a dumb and unfounded claim and when confronted with evidence that you have no conuter to you resort to drawing away the attention by attacking the text that a person of who english is not the first language.
Dreachon 3 days ago
@Dreachon
I'm a fucking Korean. I know what I'm talking about with regards to the Korean War you dumb shit.
I'm tired of talking to someone desperately trying, yet failing to speak the English language.
The T-34s were instrumental in the military strategy of the North Koreans.
Shermans, not so much for the other side.
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
M26 and M46 tanks were what defeated the Russian armor.
Actually learn foreign history before making an ass of yourself.
RaitoYagami88 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
If anyone should learn about foreign history it is you, given you have no idea at all about the tanks, you know nothing of the shermans strenght and weaknesses and you most certainly do not know of the T-34 weaknesses.
The only person qwho is making an ass of himself is you.
Dreachon 3 days ago
@Dreachon Personal attacks and claims that I don't know shit.
Brilliant response, bro.
I'm fucking done arguing with you.
You can tell yourself you won this "internet argument."
What a fucking joke.
Oh and by the way its not fucking foreign history for me you retard.
I'm Korean. That means it's domestic history.
They drill this shit into our heads from day one of the education system.
RaitoYagami88 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
Your the joke, you can't do anything but insulting others, you have no proof for your empty and absurd claims.
You know nothing and you try to bully the other into submission, how sad and pathetic.
Dreachon 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
Calm down and try and talk sense, nip,
You are rambling.
LaughingGravy31 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
""I'm a fucking Korean. I know what I'm talking about with regards to the Korean War you dumb shit.""
Then you should KNOW that during the Korean War the American Sherman 76mms actually bested the Soviet made T-34/85s.
This is a fact.
LaughingGravy31 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
By the way the best tanks in the Korean War were the British Centurions. There were fewer of them but they were easily the best tanks employed by any side during that conflict.
LaughingGravy31 3 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
A reliable workhouse that was easy to work with, easy to repair yet it get's dragged by idiots liek you who have no clue or people like mr. Attwater in this video who despite beeing a so-called expert on weapons still falls to old and outdated myths.
Burning had nothing to due with the fuel but with unprotected ammo having a tendency of catching fire, this was later correct by wet stowage, still way better than russian ammo which had the tendency to explode.
Dreachon 6 days ago
@RaitoYagami88
When it was introduced the Sherman was actually considered a good tank and could combat the Panzer III although the newer Panzer IVs with the L/43 gave it problems.
It was outclassed by the Tiger and Panthers but so were the T-34s (even T-34/85s). The later Sherman 76s were roughly on a par with the T-34/85s.
And it's true the Shermans did beat the T-34/85s in Korea although American tank warfare experience and crew training would have been a factor too.
LaughingGravy31 4 days ago
the sherman was not tough, it got raped if I remember it properly. And to make it's weak armor worse it couldn't even put a hole in it's enemies.
Imprezaman555 1 week ago
@Imprezaman555
Wrong on all your accounts.
The M3 75mm was good enuogh to tackle the most common german vehicles, the panzer IV and StuG III, later models with the M1 76mm surpassed both of these.
It was also far more reliable, easy to repair
Dreachon 1 week ago
2:01 was that a god damn turret flying in the air?
TomuxLT 1 week ago
@TomuxLT
That is very possible, this generally happend when the vehicles own ammo goes off.
Dreachon 1 week ago
Sherman crap is cool.
Grenadier1 1 week ago
sherman was paper comparing to american tanks
pyllywaltteri 2 weeks ago
@pyllywaltteri Sherman IS an american tank.
0321991 1 week ago
@pyllywaltteri umm sherman is an american built tank
RiksIsBack 1 week ago
@RiksIsBack oh my.. meant german
pyllywaltteri 1 week ago
Also, fear factor - the Sherman was a pretty tall tank and seeing one roll towards you would probably scare you shitless. Someone actually described it as intimidating even when compared to a M1 Abrams. Standard infantry scarcely stood a chance unless at close range where their Panzerfausts were more accurate.
510Anonymous 3 weeks ago
Seems like people forget about the Sherman's wet stowage that came into place later in its service.
The problem is that people always forget that comparing the Sherman to the Tiger tank is something unfair. However, if we compare the Sherman to the T-34/85, we can see the Sherman has better armor, armament, crew comfort, and optics.The T34 did have cost on its side though, and most of the armor was sloped compared to only the front and turret (M4A3E8) on the Sherman.
510Anonymous 3 weeks ago
@510Anonymous
True but the steel used in the T-34 armour was of a poorer quality than the steel used for the sherman.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon In the later versions, definitely. Soviet steel tended to be hard and brittle, shattering on impact. The later model Shermans had homogeneous rolled steel that was capable of deflecting a Panzershreck round if it was shot at an angle. However, the early M4s' cast armor was nothing to brag about.
IMO, if we judge WW2 tanks purely on their performance for their class, and not on the circumstances in their battlefield, the Sherman would have been one of the best medium tanks.
510Anonymous 3 weeks ago
@510Anonymous
Well during WWII cast armour was weaker than welded armour of the same thickness, casting in those days was that well checked for flaws and many bubbles or impurities would take place within the cast pieces.
Dreachon 3 weeks ago
@Dreachon Yes, hence why the early Shermans' armor wasn't great.
510Anonymous 3 weeks ago
Shermans main flaw was its armor (stood absolutely no chance against 88mm, tiger could take out a sherman from 1800 yards with one shot)
GreenGhost494 4 weeks ago
them to ricochet up off the concrete,blacktop, cobblestone,etc into the underbelly of the tank, where the armor is often thinnest. it was a more popular way to atack panthers and king tigers from the air as well since they didnt have the massive grilles over the radiator/fuel tanks like the tiger.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
And all of that is nothing more than lies and myth created by pilots, because of their angle of atatck their MG and cannons would actually hit the side, front or rear of a tank.
The ricochet is anotehr just another blatant lie as nothing of it is true, the bottom of a tank is not a thinh sheet but often 20 to 40mm thick as it needs to protect it's bottom against mines.
A bullet that ricochet off the street would have been deformed and lost most of it's power.
Dreachon 1 month ago
if german tank commanders "always" drove with their hatches open then there would be no need for periscopes on the commanders hatch. most of the tanks that were disabled by aircraft in WWII were taken out by firing the 50 cal guns (i believe they were 20mm cannon on typhoons) through the engine grilles and disabling the engine, getting a mobility kill. A P-47 pilot said they would also (if the tank was on a good, hard road) that they could fire the rounds toward the botom of the tank, getting
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
They would keep the hatch open for as long as possible but in soem situations they would have needed to close the hatch.
Stop making such dumb question just because your too afraid to face the truth that aircraft were horrible for destroying tanks.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon bahahahahah do you really believe ALL german tank commanders had the balls to have themselves out the hatches all the time? not likely at all, read more than two or three accounts before you make assumptions. and no, the biggest piece of that shell casing that would be left would be no bigger than a mans palm. that BRASS casing would desintigrate far worse than an UNDETONATED STEEL rocket. if a cast steel projectile is ripped apart by a charge do you really think brass would survive?
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Experienced commanders did, I think if ayone should do more reading it's you as your going off myths to support the outdated and outlandish claims made by pilots.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon
Yeah so much myth spouted about how allied pilots took out German tanks.
The reality is that comparatively few German tanks were destroyed by allied air attacks compared to other losses.
In Normandy (the theatre most closely associated with allied air power causing havoc for German armour) only between 5% to 8% of German tanks were destroyed by allied planes.
LaughingGravy31 1 week ago
ugly tank :P
SergeantJK 1 month ago 2
laying next to a tiger cannot be trusted, especially if the ammo cooked off in the tiger as you say, there would be no shell casings. have you ever watched a round cook off before? if a round goes off in a gun the casing is fine, if not in the breach, the projectile hardly moves and the casing desintigrates. kinda hard to have a shell casing from cooked off ammo next to the tank it blew up.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
There would be plenty left of the shell casing, far more than if it weer a rocket.
Dreachon 1 month ago
to look for something in a report that wont be there. most tank commanders would be inside the tanks for combat...contrary to popular belief not many panzer commanders stayed out of the hatch during combat, its kinda hard to notice aircraft through a turret hatch isnt it? "a long hollow tube" could be anything...a german mess kit, a shell casing, the test tube in which you were created, a rocket launch tube jettisoned from an american aircraft, etc. a description of what a french farmer finds
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Dude, german tanks commander would allways drive with their hatches open, closing your hatches was trouble as your vision would be limited, german commander kept the top hatch open for as long as possible.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon are you aware that a large majority of destroyed vehicles on the ground were reported by AAF and RAF personnel on the ground? they were sent into combat as liasons to measure and record the combat effectiveness of close air support, and pilots were NEVER given credit for kills (air to air or air to ground) until eith the gun cameras, recon photos, or ground personnel confirmed it. pilots reported when they "engaged" enemy ground targets in after action reports, so it will do no good
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
And pilots made over exagerated claims during their sorties over Normandy, the US and UK both had research teams on the ground who inspected the wrecks of german armour, do you know what was the result of these studies, that only 7% of the german tanks lost in normandy were due to direct close air support.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon
To give nice example of the Typhoon's rocket, during Operation Goodwood (18th to 21st July) the 2nd Tactical Air Force and 9th USAAF claimed 257 and 134 tanks, respectively, as destroyed. Of these, 222 were claimed by Typhoon pilots using RPs
Here's what the research teams found:
In the Goodwood area a total of 456 German heavily armoured vehicles were counted, and 301 were examined in detail. They found only 10 could be attributed to Typhoons using RPs
Dreachon 1 month ago
Our poor little Sherman was an Infantry Support Vehicle. It needed the higher velocity 76mm Gun (about 15% of later model Shermans had the high velocity gun). A major advantage the Sherman DID have was the majority that were "knocked out" were repaired and put back into action. They were a simple, mass produced tank that was also easy to repair. Remember, we DID beat the German Panthers and Tigers because we could produce them in mass numbers.
randy95023 1 month ago
didnt even have a "no fly zone" or a strict sector to stick to. they were often allowed to free roam and engage targets of oppurtunity. the fire selector switches on P-47s and Typhoons could fire two rounds at a time minimum (one from each wing to keep the plane balanced), meaning one could have hit and one missed. and besides, there is a massive difference between an 88mm projectile and a plane fired rocket, you cannot mistake the two.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Dude, just get this into your stubborn head, what the found was the hollow shellcasing, the part that hold the powder to fire the shell, this far bigger than the actual projectile.
it was not a rocket as it was described as a long hollow tube.
Dreachon 1 month ago
FIREPOWER better, it does not keep that 88 on the tiger from cutting through it like butter. No forces know what exct crew knocked out Wittmanns crew, therefore any claim that a tank crew yook him out is null and void. "Aircraft not in the area" fighter and attack planes are not like bombers, pilots do not check maps every few minutes to check their position. Attack planes in WWII were used on a "seek and destroy" basis, basically fly around, find the enemy, and destroy them. often times they
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Dude do you even have the faintest idea on what the british 17 pounder was and was capapble of?
Dreachon 1 month ago
column of them would have been able to stop his attack at Villers-Bocage. instead it was a camouflaged, ambushing anti-tank gun that disabled his tank. American and Canadian tank column passed stopped british troops and vehicle crews drinking tea on quite a few occasions. I am from America and i know how shitty the Sherman was, i will admit it. Just the gun is upped to 76.2mm (an astounding 1.2mm bigger than the standard gun) with a longer barrel does not make the tank better, it make the
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
To further shoot down this absurd concept, no enemy tanks were claimed to have been engaged or destroyed by allied pilots in that area, extensieves studies in the archives of the RAF 2nd tactical airforce make this perfecty clear.
Then we have eye-witness account by the german and allied tankers that took part in the fighting that no planes were there.
Alfred Bahlo, Hans Dollinger, Hans Höflinger, Doctor Rabe, Captain Boardman, Trooper Ekins and Major Radley-Walters
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon then explain the claims that the tanks penetrated the top armor of the tank? the only way that could have happened was if the allied tanks were firing down from an elevated position, which they were not. which means that either the tanks were destroyed from the air or with indirect artillery fire.
not having tea time? that explains how Wittmann demolished an entire British tank coulmn before they could even react...if the sherman crews were actually in their tanks then a whole
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Dude we are talking about the event that took place on the 8th of august, that is no way connected to what happened at villers Bocage.
Dreachon 1 month ago
gun they would have had a tough time penetrating any area that would hve caused an explosion to blow the turret off. the allied units also claimed to have penetrated the armor on toip of the hull...kinda hard to do when you arent firing from an elevated position.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
At 1000m the 17 pounder will penetrate 125mm of armour sloped at 30 degree from vertical, a tiger has a max of 100mm flat armour att he front.
And this is just with a standerd APCBC shot, nothing fancy liek an APDS.
It has been proven that the Canadians delivered the killshot as Wittmann was at 150m of them and the holes in his tiger corresponded to their position.
None british aircraft were anywere near the battle at that time.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon
Even Kurt Meyer, commander of the 12th ss, remarked on how there were no aircraft that morning.
There is also a nice documentary right here on youtube about the battle.
The explosion that caused the turret fly comes from only one source, the tank own ammo
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon i'd like to see proof of that. seeing as how an undetonated rocket from a typhoon was found near Wittmans tiger, i doubt it was canadian and british tank forces...especially since the British were still enjoying tea time like the British 7th armored was when he tore them a new asshole. The tank crews that "destroyed" wittmanns group claimed to have penetrated the armor from over 800meters, not possible for the shermans 75mm gun. and even if they were the Firefly sherman with the 76.2mm
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
It was not an undetonated rocket but an empty shell from the 88, the fact that only a single of this "rocket" was found says enough as pilots would fire a salov of them.
Also neither of the 2 groups were having teatime, they were well aware of the germans even before the germans knew what hit them.
Also the Canadians were as close as 150m from Wittmann's Tiger tank and at 800m a firefly will penetrate the frontal armour of a Tiger I with ease.
Dreachon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Borrynixon Correct, American tanks didnt need 6 reverse gears, we dont follow the "Retreat first, engage later" military doctrine like the french army lol
wildchild77x 1 month ago
Comment removed
wildchild77x 1 month ago
Typhoons and P-47 thunderbolts destroyed alot of tanks in normandy. in fact, Micheal Wittmans tiger (as well as himself) was destroyed by Typhoons in Normandy.
wildchild77x 1 month ago
@wildchild77x
Oh please that is nothing more than hollywood movies and games myth, a gigantic overblown junk myth.
Wittmann's Tiger group were knocked out by british and canadian tank forces, there were no aircraft anywere near them that morning, that is a fact.
Less than 7% of the germans armoured losses in normand were due to allied CAS.
Dreachon 1 month ago
copy the Somua S-35?
Did the Sherman tank have the 6-gear in reverse like the French tanks? I think not.
Borrynixon 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
From 1933 to 1950 The Red Army was the LARGEST Army in the WORLD.
In the 1930's the U.S. did NOT even HAVE any Tanks. The Sherman was a BAD Copy of the French SOMUA S-35 and, UP YOURS.
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
this tank is less effective in europe but it's very effective in the pacific war.this tank is just a disaster to the japanese.their shit tanks are just no match to the sherman.
MrHeyobitch 1 month ago
The Allies had air superiority - the preferred way to deal with German tanks was to use planes not inferior US/British tanks. The Soviets had no such luxury - till late 1943 the Germans had air superiority.
calripson 1 month ago
@calripson
Except that it was also the least effectief, following detailed investigations by both british and amrican research teams on the ground and closely looking at german wrecks they made the following conclusion, just less than 100 german fully tracked AFV were lost due to hits by aircraft launched ordnance.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@Dreachon im sorry but he is right
the most big german tanks were killed by ranged artillery fire or typhoons
only in the desert and in some other situations americans and british tanks needet to attack the tiger and others direktly by outnumbering them
the american tanks were easier to produce and a little faster then the germans
but for what a price?
american tank losses were sometimes 20:1 against the germans
thats pretty ruthless by the high command
TheLordZhufor 1 month ago
Comment removed
Dreachon 1 month ago
@TheLordZhufor
Please disregard my previous comment, I thought you were referring to megafleetwoodmac, my apologies for that.
But to correct you, no Typhoons did very little killing of german big tanks, do you know that off all the tiger tanks in normandy only 13 were lost to air, 7 of these were due to massieve area carpet bombing.
Dreachon 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only 25.000 Shermans were produced from 1942-1945.
The Sherman Tank was a BAD copy of the French Somua S-35
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
@MegaFleetwoodmac you are just an idiot from lalaland who have no knowledge about tanks.the US have one of the best tanks in the world and ur country is no match at all
MrHeyobitch 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only 25,000 Shermans were produced from 1942-1945.
The Sherman Tank was a BAD copy of the French Somua S-35
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
@MegaFleetwoodmac
Keep trolling you idiot.
Dreachon 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only 25,000 Sherman Tanks were produced from 1942-1945.
The Sherman was a VULGAR copy of the French SOMUA.
The Americans had NO knowledge to build Tanks.
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
25.000 Shermans were built from 1942-1945.
I d'ont believe the Americans had the KNOWLEDGE and EXPERTISE to built more.
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
@MegaFleetwoodmac
Yes they did you troll, now go back into your cave as you know shit, the numbers you post are just absurd and prove nothing but your stupidity.
Over 50.000 sherman were produced, 54550 T-34 were produced during the war, not this so incredibly stupid 100.000 you claim, go home to your cave you troll.
Dreachon 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@Dreachon
The Sherman was a VULGAR copy of the French SOMUA, and the Americans
had NO knowledge in 1942 on how to build Tanks. NO MORE than 25,000 Shermans
The way I think is Right think.
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Only 25,000 Shermans were built from 1940-1945.
100.000 T-34's were built from 1940-1945.
MegaFleetwoodmac 1 month ago
@MegaFleetwoodmac
So how dumb are you really givne that sofar you posted nothing but nonsense.
T-34 production for WWII, all variants is 54550 produced, sherman all variants also goes over the 50000 produced, further sherman production didn´t start until 1942.
Dreachon 1 month ago
id say that russians also was far less trained than germans and americans/british.
mrmonkeey89 2 months ago
you simply can't trump the stagering producition of the Sherman in this war
the82spartans 2 months ago
@the82spartans Except for the 55,000 t-34's made. It's no wonder Germany lost, they started their war too early with too few tanks.
McSpizzy 2 months ago in playlist More videos from MilitaryChannel
@McSpizzy -- Well a 75mm high velocity cannon on the Mk IV at the get go would of helped and even better w/ more tanks, as you say. The Germans didn't have a grasp of mass production as we understand it today. Even 1500 Tiger Panzers produced couldn't compete with the allied numbers.
Of course launching a summer campaign to invade Russia is a bad idea.
Even the Soviets got some Shermans to use.
the82spartans 2 months ago
@McSpizzy You realise that the Soviets lost 92% of every T-34 produced during the war, right?
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Compared to the American tanks, the Soviets had a better ratio of German tanks destroyed and friendly tanks lost.
McSpizzy 1 month ago
@McSpizzy
It was actually the opposite, the russians lost more tanks for each german tank destroyed than the western allies.
There's a reason why the russians lost 96500 fully tracked AFV.
Dreachon 1 month ago
@McSpizzy Not sure where you heard such an idea, but its not true at all. The US, from 1942-1945 lost 7,000 AFV in Europe/Africa, while the Soviets lost 96,500 AFV.
XxxSakura101 1 month ago
This is why the M4 had been so easy to dig into a defensive position, while the T-34 was notoriously difficult to do anything but hide in bushes with a few sandbags, or an individual trench designed for it. Cover had to be made to fit the T-34, where as the M4 could simply make do with the many hills in Europe. That combined with the diesel engine which was again Soviet climate specific.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Excuse me... this is impossible to comprehend... You think that a hull-down position is the only defensive position. If you are talking about using a physical obstacles then yes, bigger depression angle was giving a Sherman an advantage in this case (combined with an overall disadvantage of taller tank... yes, everything is a compromise in a tank). But T-34 were operating from tank-trenches many times during the war. Were those trenches more difficult to dig for T-34 than Sherman?!
BitnikGr 2 months ago
a piece of American shit (no offense)
DarkBlitzkrieg46 2 months ago
@DarkBlitzkrieg46 How so? It was the best medium tank of the war. Your a damned fool if you belive a word of this entire series.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 The best among American tanks of the war...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 You have an American Flag as your profile pic,I can't discuss anything serious with you.You are obviously too proud to be American.You like this crap just because it was made in America.
DarkBlitzkrieg46 2 months ago
@DarkBlitzkrieg46 Your joking, because i like my history all of my study over the years is suddenly invalid? Please, if that would be true- why would i also think the M1 shouldn't be in the list? Or any modern piece of equipment for that mater. I go by historical facts, not popular history. Point out one instance in my statement that had been incorrect.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
....the internet. He has one article called "I Remember" which goes into some good details about the M4A2(diesel version) and how it compared to the T-34. For the most part, he has pretty favorable things to say about it but of course there's also some issues. He also has a book out, although it's a bit on the expensive side, but it does go into quite a lot of detail on how the Russians used the Sherman in battle. Some very interesting info to say the least.
mako88sb 2 months ago
@mako88sb Exactly. Soviets hadn't same problems with their Shermans, because they had only diesel version. Nicknames like "lighter Ronson" were given to petrol powered Shermans. Since Soviets hadn't them, they couldn't tell something bad about it.
Generally, Russians have positive estimation about Sherman. Among all tanks delivered to the USSR by Lend-Lease, Sherman tank was the best suitable for combat. The rest British and American tanks were combat useless.
cont...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@mako88sb ...
After the war Soviet tankers had a saying: "Which tank is the best? Tiger for defence. T-34 for attack. Sherman to serve with." And that's the truth. All soviet tanksmen, who had a chance to serve with Sherman, were underlining first of all interior space of Sherman, white paint inside and leather seats. Comfort of T-34 was minimally sufficient.
Despite having same inferiority in numbers on Eastern and Western Fronts, German tankers were considering T-34 more dangerous opponent.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
/watch?v=YUAG-UNYnek - Russian show about Sherman M4
BitnikGr 2 months ago
"The interior was roooommy..."
typical American's thinking when it comes to any vehicles, even a TANK must have plenty of head&leg rooms, otherwise U.S tank crew men may refuse to sit in and drive it... :P
zhengjdc 2 months ago
thumbs up for the debates ^^
rabone90 2 months ago
This tank doesnt even deserve to be on the list.
jsDX11 2 months ago
@jsDX11 One day you will realize that strategically, Shermans were overwhelmingly better than any tank Germans could ever produce. And since wars are won strategically, this should be at where T-34 is. In fact, Sherman tanks were better than T-34 in almost every ways.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322
I fully agree with you on this, the sherman does perform far better, even much of the old sayings that the russians didn't like them at all seem to be propaganda based lies, people like Dmitiy Loza loved them.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 You wish.
Better optics, better ammo, gyro-stabilizer for Sherman (white paint inside and leather seats don't count).
Better engine, better maneuverability, better main gun (85mm), better armor, better survivability in battle for T-34.
So, how exactly is Sherman better in ALMOST EVERY ray?!
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Oh you ignorant person. If you know a single thing about T-34 you would realize that that T-34 had a horrible manuverability. It actually had to slow down if it was ever going to turn due to horrid transmissions.
The Sherman tank actually has better armor if you count the slope that Sherman tanks has,
The main 85mm gun had bigger calibur but the 76mm gun of Sherman had about the same capability and was much more accurate than 85mm.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Maneuverability consists of more than 2 dozens parameters. Saying only one fact about slowing down in turns doesn't mean "horrible" maneuverability in any way. You think that tall Sherman could turn easily on fast speeds? Even lower tanks of 50-60-70-80s can tumble over while turning at high speeds (more than 40-50km/h).
German Tiger commander wrote in his memoirs that he couldn't turn his turret fast enough in order to keep aiming a T-34 running across the field. That's how ...
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 ... "horrible" T-34 maneuverability was. And I even hadn't started with passability in mud and swamps. Belorussian offensive was successful because hundreds of T-34s passed through swamps.
Sloped armor... is that invention of Sherman? Or T-34 is famous for its INNOVATING sloped armor?
I hadn't read anywhere German tankers saying that their rounds were ricocheting from Sherman armor.
Sherman's frontal armor equivalent varied from 51-108mm. T-34 had 90mm. Where is the better armor?
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr My point was not that Shermans could turn quickly in high speed. My point was that T-34 could not turn as well as shermans could in high speed due to their transmission.
It is true that early Shermans weren't as good at crossing muddy grounds but it was quickly fixed when wider tracks with duckbill was adopted.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@BitnikGr T-34 had armor of 90mm when calculated with the slope(about 60 degree). Without calculating the slope, it had 45mm of armor. Sherman, in the other hand, had 51mm of armor when calculated WITHOUT the slope but when calculated WITH the slope(about 56 degree), it is about 91. And when you calculate later versions like E8, it goes to about 112mm. Who has the better armor?
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Correct. But again, 90 and 91-112 is not a big difference. 20mm is a difference of several steps at distances up to 1200m. Can this be called a "dramatically better protection"? Doesn't the fact of using of fire-hazardous engines reduces that level of protection. Tank protection is also a complex term including many parameters and not just armor equivalent of body. And we even didn't considered sides of their turret, where T-34 has same slight edge, like Sherman has in body.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr The reason why rounds ricocheted from T-34 was because gunss that initially engaged T-34 were from early german tanks or anti tanks guns which were usually 37mm or 50mm guns. Rounds ricocheting off from T-34 rarly happened after long 75mm gunned tanks were brought in. Shermans, on other hand, faced tanks usually armed with long 75mm guns as soon as they were brought into European Theatre.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Not true. German tankers on Tigers (88mm) were writing about rounds bouncing of T-34 turrets, especially at distances over 700m. I've read several memoirs about Battle of Kursk, where they were stating this.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr In fact, during Africa campaign, Shermans could easily withstand early german tank and anti-tanks guns, which also faced T-34 is early stages, with little trouble.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Not true again. German antitank guns and T-III and T-IV were clearly inferior to T-34 in 1941. There is a great documentary serie with a title "The Great War" with English subtitles. I'll find a link for you. (It is not the same with famous "Great War" by BBC about WWI).
Majority of T-34 losses in 1941 were not even combat losses.
Lack of communications on tanks, obsolete tactics, incompetent commanders from battalion level to Stalin himself - these were reasons of T34 losses in 41.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Here it is - /watch?v=L7V0wP_OESg
At 7:00 it is described how Soviets lost the whole 6th Mechanized Corp of 1000 tanks including 350 KV and T-34s. Simply because they run out of fuel and Soviet rear lines were already smashed.
Meaning that units, which were resisting successfully at first days of war eventually run out of ammo and fuel and had to destroy their tanks and retreat back, simply because they couldn't be supplied.
Only T-26s and BT-7s had heavy combat losses those days.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr I don't recall myself saying "dramatically better protection" about armor but true, armor was not significantly better in Sherman. However, I have to disagree on "fire-hazardous engines" because the cause of fire in shermans, in fact in any tank, was due to ammunition. In fact, shermans, panzer 4s and T-34 all had about equal chance of fire when penetrated which is about 80%. However, Sherman adopted the wet ammo rack which drastically decreased the chance of fire.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Only ammunition? And gasoline engines has nothing to do with it?
You know that diesel is much harder to catch fire comparing to petrol and aviation kerosene. Only temperatures of shaped charge rounds and special incendiary rounds can set fire on diesel. Meanwhile petrol engine catches fire just like that.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Yes, your right of course that gasoline engines do contribute more to fires then diesel but as dixowns322 states, ammunition cook-offs was the main cause of tank brew-ups. The Yanks as far as I know where the only ones to alleviate this by using wet storage. The result: 10-15% WS M4's burned compared to 60-80% for non-WS. I believe the roominess of the M4 is a big part of the reason they where able to add WS. If your not familar with Dmitriy Loza, you should check for him on.....cont
mako88sb 2 months ago
@BitnikGr It wasn't only the ammunition but the engine in Sherman tank was designed so that it would rarly catch on fire when damaged. If the engine did cause a fire, it will not cause a burst of flame as ammunition explotion would and gave the crew more than enough time to escape. Infact, when wet ammo rack was adopted, only 10-15% of sherman caught on fire after being damaged.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@BitnikGr When considering the fact that 60% of panthers and 80% of tiger burned up after being penetrated, you can see that engine had very little to do with Shermans burning up.
Infact, many tanks during WW2 and after utilzed gasoline engines.
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 "Infact, many tanks during WW2 and after utilzed gasoline engines."
Not in the USSR. USSR hadn't enough high octane petrol. But they had more than enough of diesel fuel. Even if they had any tank design using gasoline engine in pre-war years, that would be an exception of the rule.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 Modern Russian documentary about Sherman.
/watch?v=YUAG-UNYnek
Same show. A man who fought both on T-34 and Sherman on Eastern Front speaks about both tanks.
/watch?v=jEzT4oVyZGA
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr The M4 wasn't designed for the Eastern front, much as how the T-34 wasn't designed for combat in Europe or the desert.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 As it was proven Tiger and Panther wasn't quite suitable for Eastern Front either. :)
I don't know about desert terrain, since T-34 never got there, but I don't see any problem with T-34 running in Europe.
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr The T-34 had a negative gun depression of only -4, meaning it was near impossible to take advantage over elevated surfaces, or even aim to high places. Its low profile allowed it to be small (if still large) target on the open plains, but as we saw in non Soviet Europe the tank suffered for terrible visibility and lacked the ability to see over obstacles. Combined with few radios, the tank had to rely almost exclusively on surrounding infantry to figure out whats going on around it.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 In your previous comment you said that T-34 wasn't designed for combat in Europe or desert. This, first of all, refers to maneuverability. How everything you wrote now are related to maneuverability in any way? Once you name hills as not suitable position for T-34, then you name open plains... which is it? Yes, it had low angle of depression... (all low profile tanks have this problem), but why exactly it couldn't "even aim at high places"? Since it had same elevation +25dgr?!
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr the M4 and T-34 are very visibility designed to match the terrain they had been expected to fight in. The T-34 had little need to see over obstacles or be effective in hilly terrain, because the Soviet Union had consisted of primarily the Ukrainian plains, and the Belarus and Novogorian swamps and forests. Their tanks could afford to hug the ground well, as visibility wasn't an issue, or was gun depression. However the US tanks needed these qualities (not so much in Africa)
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@BitnikGr Gasoline was far more effective than diesel (which is why everyone but the Soviets used it) but diesel was also far more resistant to the cold, which is what Russia was infamous for.
XxxSakura101 2 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Gasoline WAS far more effective? And it is not now?
BitnikGr 2 months ago
@BitnikGr The survability was about the same in early Sherman but after the adoptation of a wet ammorack, the survability of Sherman became dramatically better than a T-34
dlxowns322 2 months ago
@dlxowns322 "dramatically"? Don't you think that this is a plain exaggeration for both tanks which had to cover significant distance in order to fight heavy German tanks?
There were NO DRAMATICAL differences between these tanks in anything! A bit better here, a bit worse there... but no dramatical differences!
BitnikGr 2 months ago
the rankings don't make any sense. The T34 and the M4 sherman were both very similar in armor and firepower. I can easily prove that between 1943 -1945, more t34's were knocked out than shermans were, yet the T34 gets a better ranking? The T34 was just introduced a bit earlier when tanks were still developing. If the sherman was intorduced in 1939-1940, it would of been a monster to the germans like the T34 was.
thefast427 3 months ago
@thefast427
True, the sherman was pretty good when it first was designed but it sadly arrived at a point in which the germans were already some steps ahead when it came to gun and armour design.
Dreachon 2 months ago
@thefast427
Yes more T-34 was knocked out, but armored battle in the West was just a wind breeze in comparison with those huge battles in the East, thats why they lost more, T-34 had a superior design compared to Sherman.
And Sherman was never and could never become a monster against them German tanks, they were superior in everything, komunication, armor, artillery, engineering and personell.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian German tanks? Panzer Mk. III is a tank and it stand no chance against the M4. The M4A3E2 (152mm) had more better armor than the Tiger I (100mm) or Panther (120mm), but American strategic thinkers held back, resulting few of them to be produced and too late to see actual combat experience. The M1 76mm on the M4A3E2 is weaker than the Tiger I's 88mm and Panther's 75mm. However, with special shells, most of which are given to TD, the M1 can penetrate both German heavies from the front.
Normacly 2 months ago
@Normacly
U.S. Army received 254 pieces M4A3E2 against fortifications, was not a tank in the traditional sense.
A Discussion on the efficiency of a tank can can not deal with things like "We Developed, but..."
It has not rolled in the service in a tank role it should not be included under the category of world's best tank.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
@MrCastodian It is a tank and have a tank role. Which is infantry support and several M4A3E2 were equipped with M1 76mm. The M1 cannon is design for anti-tank warfare. The early Panzer III and IV models were armed with short barrel cannons design for infantry support. Both are label as tank as well.
Normacly 2 months ago
@MrCastodian Have searched for info about this and find some new info.
Fact of armor and the gun is about as you said, but that it was used to attack bunkers, fortified and so on.
Then that the cannon had some problems (imbalance) and had to be shortened, which reduced penetration.
And the cannon as you described (M1) was mounted in the second Sherman models with good results but the Tungsten amunitionen was unusual and only few unit got it and in a relatively few each Tank.
MrCastodian 2 months ago
Succes? The sherman didn't have succes...the deal is, for every tank the Nazi's build the Americans would build 15 shermans. They just couldn't keep up. I think it hardly deserves a place in this list at all.
CyclonicTuna023 3 months ago
@CyclonicTuna023 That my friend is what you call a success. War is not about fighting 1:1, it is about overwhelming your foe with force and crushing them. In a war it does not matter if you lose more as long as you can wear out your enemy faster than they can wear you out. Its the tactic that won the Civil War and the Vietnam War.
BTW. the kill ratio of German tank to Allied tank was about 1.5:1 and considering the fact that allied had way more tanks, Germans were utterly crushed.
dlxowns322 3 months ago
the funny thing is that the one who drives it also count, in 1967 and before we were stuck to shermans and we were outnumbered while the arabs had much more soviet tanks who were also much bigger, heavier, better armoured and bigger guns, these soviet tanks were better than tiger tanks, despite all this we managed to defeat the arabs in tank battles, oh and in 1967 we added a french 100mm cannon to the sherman
ISRAELKING100 3 months ago
this piece of shit was one of the biggest crew deathtraps to ever serve on a battlefield. it hada punny 50MM protection which gave light tanks a chance to knock it out. it ran on gasoline unlike other tanks, thats why they called it a fucking tommy cooker, it would explode from the first shot, it was'nt "highly mobile" it had narrow tracks which often got stuck in mud, it was'nt cheap, how can a tank be fucking cheap, it was the producers who were rich, how did this junk get in the list?
dividednation44 3 months ago
@dividednation44
Sorry to say but your repeating several old myths that have long been proven false.
The burning of shermans has nothing to do with fuel, panzers also use gasoline remember.
It was due to unprotected ammo getting hit by hot shrapnel and shellfragment that ignited them.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@Dreachon no, dorkie, panzers and several other tanks dident achieve renown by using gasoline that explodes like a bomb when hit, it used diesel. fool
dividednation44 3 months ago
@dividednation44
Nice way to prove your own stupidity, every german build tank used a maybach engine that used petrol/gasoline, this can be read in any source.
Seriously read books before opening that mouth of yours.
Dreachon 3 months ago
@Dreachon pfffffffffffffft
still a tommy cooker
dividednation44 3 months ago
this junk does'nt deserve any award or record as it was on of the most dangerous tanks to fight in in the war with a puny 50MM frontal armor protection gave light guns a good chance to knock out this piece of garbage, the sherman ran on gasoline unlike other tanks, thats why they called it a tommy cooker, it was'nt highly mobile, it had narrow tracks which often got stuck in mud, its gun was a piece of shit good for nothing 75MM which merely scratched the paintjob over the PZIV/panther
dividednation44 3 months ago
how in fuckins name did this peice of shit make it here....t90 should replace it
CCCP307 3 months ago
hahaha, so this piece o shit makes the list, but not the panther.
And they even have the audacity to make it look better for it being used to clear mines and other unorthodox uses, when fact is, they had to come up with some use for it, it couldnt fight other tanks
GertOgren 4 months ago
@GertOgren On the contrary, this program goes out of its way to make the Sherman look worse than it was. Educate yourself, please.
revolrz22 4 months ago
@revolrz22 fact remains, compared to its contemporarys, this tank was horrible, it was basically a tracked infantry support cannon, as such im sure it had its uses. but in tankwarfare it was shit, and should not make the list, shit is shit, even if u pile it high. Take a bike and a slingshot, call it a tank, and massproduce 10 million tanks, and it would make this list.
GertOgren 4 months ago
@GertOgren It wasn't intended to go toe to toe with other tanks. That was the job of towed anti-tank guns tank destroyers like the M10, M18, and M36 under US Army doctrine.
mgibbs88 4 months ago
@GertOgren How so? Define its 'contemporaries.' Because when it came out, it dominated Pz.Kpfw IV F, and it wasn't until the KwK 40 was common place in panzer units that it became outgunned, which is a gap it bridged in later models. It always had more armor than either the T-34 or Pz.kpfw IV. It had a stabilizer, which the others did not. It had instruments for indirect fire, which the others did not. See a pattern, here?
revolrz22 3 months ago
ever think off uploading in HD?
ZerkPureFTW 4 months ago
Well the biggest problem is that they are comparring apples and oranges. How you can go from 1918 to 2011 in comparing tanks is really silly. Atwater and Nushauser konw this too.
Colfax11000 4 months ago
@Colfax11000 it's more a matter of how useful it was at the time.
Trisscarro 4 months ago
@Trisscarro World War Two tanks deserve their own category. There has not been an industrial war on that level since then. Yes I understand that the Sherman went on to fight in many wars like Korea and with Israel, but seriously how can you compare it to any US tank built in the 1950s? The M46 was way beyond the Sherman in many ways.
Colfax11000 4 months ago