ich hatt einen kameraden made this vidoe verry toching in that i feel for those poor bastards horrible way to go .....ich fur Deutschland minen gutt kameraden
@ThePanzerWarMachine Oh ok, yeah I've heard that from several different sources. But I wouldn't say that makes the entire US military based on the German Army. Similar at best.
@TEAMGODdotNET "Ich hatt' einen Kameraden" (I had a Comrade...), a church style slow march song for fallen soldiers, was sung at funerals or in the field.
the man in this video said that it was a tiger tank that was destroyed by the m26,but it is actually a panther 1 tank,take a closer look at the turret,and also the overall size of the tank,much smaller than a tiger,just for correction sake!!
from an allied tanker point of view. Any German Tank, wich is capeble of killing a sherman Tank with one shot is a ''Tiger''. In Normandy, only 90 Tiger tank Served in 2 Regiments, but every tank was claimed to be a Tger. The Panther was a real nasty suprise to anyone who stumbled upon them, But well into '44 Allied Intel wasen't sure of the ''Panther's'' performance.
this is not war this is murder... they should have stop firing after the tank was disabled and the crew was trying to get out.... instead they fired again and again...
@xCh34pShOtx You can thank A guy named McNair for a thing called the "Tank Destroyer Doctrine" This administratively limited the M-4 tank to a low velocity 75mm gun, when it should have had a very high velocity gun. This was so because the sherman was to be only an infantry support tank, and not engage other tanks on their own. Tanks were to be the target of tank destroyer units. This was a terrible idea, and its implementation caused so many needless casualties.
@dardo1201 Not sure of his later activity regarding the M-4, but the M-4A3-E2 Jumbo was a short run vehicle, only 250 or so made. they all had the low velocity 75mm gun. Some had field upgrades to the high velocity 76.2mm gun, only the gun tube needed changing, and an alteration to the ammo storage for the much longer round. The larger T-33 turret of the Jumbo made this possible. It is doubtful that the M-4 could take the 90 mm gun, as sufficient ammo storage would be near impossible
@xCh34pShOtx But the Sherman does had its own advantage. They have destroyed many more T-34s in Korea than all other tanks combined. Unless the opponent is a heavy tank, the late model 76mm Shermans can take care of it.
@lander4545 My point wasn't who won, but the cost of "winning". I certainly would pick being on foot rather than being inside a Sherman if I was in WWII.
The best version of this film, shows when the panther its the sherman, the comander escapes with no leg and one more crew member. 2 of 5. When the m26 hits the panther i see all the crew alive and looks very well to me
georgiab1981,,the predecessor,or grandad of the a10 was the republic thunderbolt,wt 7 tons,8 x 50 cal guns,could carry ex fuel,cannons,2 500 lbrs,quentin anansen (the PBS special) shot up xxxk column miles of sometimes retreating german armored units,the bullets caused limbs torsos to fly in the air,guy still had nightmares of this up to his death a few years ago.
Everyone thinks that if Russia was defeated the U.S AND BRITAIN would loose. No way the Germans would have to first invade Britain and they couldn't do that because they were at getting beat in the air! Anyway either way the Atom bomb would have been ready in 1945 and we would of used it on Germany until they surrendered. If the U.S DIDN'T HAVE TO SUPPLY Russia with the millions of dollars worth of trucks, planes, bullets, bombs, ext. Most people do not realize that Russia got more of are goods
Eisenhower said that the carnage from that attack was so violent that you could walk for miles stepping on nothing but dead people, animals, armor. He said danm them Germans for making us do this to them! Well said!
True dat that's way it's name is the thunderbolt 2. Lol it's a beast! But still nothing beats operation cobra where those medium and heavy bombers decimated those king tigers and panthers and horses and guns. That footage is amazing the german soldiers that survived had blood dripping from there eye balls and ears and nose. That was probably horrific for them!
Js1 was a turkey so the German tank commanders say. Michael whittman got hit twice at put blank range and it did not penetrate! Could be a lie but it is confirmed by others on the battle field. He didn't even notice it cause it was so close to his tank buried in the forest. He turned the tigers turret and blew the js1 to bits!
But the germans would always target the firefly or super 8 first. Because it caused a serious threat! There were not enough of them. Man if the U.S JUST WOULD HAVE CUT THE RED TAPE ON THE PERSHING AND SUPER PERSHING THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALOT LESS TANK CASUALTIES! THERE WAS A GUY ON THE HISTORY CH. THE OTHER DAY THAT SAID THE GENERALS HAD COMMITTED A MAJOR CRIME BY DELAYING THE M-26 Pershing! I AGREE
@Brandonbigone87: Yep, that's true. Can you imagine what a modern tank hunting aircraft like an A-10 would do to those German tanks? Actually, the A-10 is descended from WWII in a way, because its designers interviewed Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the Stuka ground-attack pilot who flew more than 2500 missions and killed more than 500 tanks in the east. He was the most highly decorated member of the German armed forces.
Yea your right, I was thinking of the elephant self propelled gun. The late stage of that sp was 240mm the early was 200mm frontal. Anyway the point is the Pershing's main gun could penetrate even that. If you read the specs you can see how and why it was made.
The panther couldn't, but tiger could. The Pershing was still a medium tank but the gun was considered the equal ir better then the flak 24-36 88mm. In fact it was designed specifically to beat the 88. And most people do not realize that the British 17 pounder had more penetrating power at longer distance then the 88 as well but had a blinding muzzle flash at night. Hard to follow up another shot but they adapted.
@Brandonbigone87: Correct, concerning the 17-pounder, which had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88mm, and superior penetration using APDS ammo, i.e. armor piercing discarding sabot subcaliber rounds. Almost everyone had a high velociy, flat-shooting anti-aircraft cannon that could be adapted to anti-tank use, the Germans were just the first to do it and adapted the 88 to multiple uses.
Trust me im not the usual person on u-TUBE that spits shit out without being able to back it up. I can send you the crew eye witness statement if you like. They had a modified t-50 Pershing with thicker armor but same gun.
No man it's not a video. It is a statement from the tank crew. And yes the t-26 or m-26 Pershings 90mm high velocity cannon was designed to penetrate 9 inches of armor. And king tiger was 240 mm thick.
I totaly agree with you " but then again the the good old USA was not bombed to hell ,like the Germnans. They had 5yrs to sort out a better tank and it came late 45. The earlier Panther's had problems"once they sorted those problems out it became the best tank of the war especially the Panther G.
There is a rare video if anybody wants to see it. A m26 Pershing blowing off a king tiger turret with the first shot! Front armor as well. Which was very thick!
@Brandonbigone87: Brandon, FYI, no King Tiger was ever known to be penetrated frontally during the war and knocked out; its armor was that thick! What you are seeing in this video is a Panther being knocked out; their profiles were similar so it is easy to mistake one for the other.
How can someone trust anything this guy says when he can't even identify the tank properly? I feel like I'm watching one of those crappy History Channel tank specials where they misidentify a Jagdpanzer IV as a Jagdtiger.
@thenoobfactor yeah, but not close combat, det tiger was able to take out a is-2 in close combat, something michael wittman did. and thats a huge caliber under ww2, the tiger would slice the pershings head of and feed it to the konigs tiger
@MrSpy3000 The panthers gun likely would have destroyed the pershing as well. But you asked about an almost identical scenario where instead of a panther there is a tiger on the end of the street. The pershing shot first in the actual engagement, because of its advanced stabilization it likely would have shot first against the tiger. And thats what the end result comes down to in urban combat, whoever shoots first.
@MrSpy3000: 2mm? The Pershing had a 90mm gun, more than powerful-enough to penetrate a Panther (or Tiger) from the side. The Panther had a high-velocity 75mm main gun, not an 88mm, as the Tiger did.
@MrSpy3000: probably the same result; the Tiger I was a formidable MBT, but very heavy and not quick to turn or rotate its turret. The 90mm gun on the Pershing could penetrate the weaker side armor of the Tiger fairly easily, just as with the Panther. Frontally, it would have been tougher.
@GeorgiaBoy1961 Hmmm, I don't recall any sources naming the Tiger I as an MBT - if anything, the Panther is better to be called an MBT. MBTs practically have a mix in both the roles of light, medium, heavy and super-heavy tanks in firepower, weight, cost (maybe), mobility and armor. The Tiger I, for certain was not balanced in cost, weight and mobility to an extent (it was still quite fast compared to the Sherman and T-34 despite being almost twice the weight).
@88Scatter: Actually, I think I am guilty of using modern terminology - "main battle tank" - that had not yet been invented during WWII, when it was more common to classify tanks as light, medium or heavy, along with more eccentric terms such as the British "cruiser" et al. By German standards, the 46-ton M26 Pershing would have been considered a medium tank, equivalent to the Panther, as you note. The U.S. Army originally classified it as a heavy tank.
@88Scatter: What qualifies as a medium vs. heavy tank can get ambiguous, though... because the M26 had a larger caliber gun than the Panther, 90mm versus 75mm, but similar weight and protection. The Soviet IS-2 Stalin tank, also 46 tons, mounted a massive 122mm main gun, but had protection no better than the Pershing or Panther, and arguably worse. I would call the Tiger I a heavy tank, at 60 tons, but then what do you call the King Tiger at 68 tons, let alone the Maus?
@MrSpy3000: Panther or Tiger, it doesn't matter. Either one would have been knocked out and probably blown up or burned after being hit through its thinner side armor. Allied tankers quickly learned - after seeing the thickness of German frontal armor on tanks like these - that the best way to knock out German armor was by flanking it and taking side and rear shots. We also turned captured German panzerfausts on them to great effect.
@ThePanzerWarMachine: No, not really... a well-armed tank or tank destroyer on the defensive, waiting in ambush, has an inherent advantage compared to the armor attacking it. There are numerous instances on both sides - Allied and Axis - of single tanks delaying or beating back attacks by a larger number of tanks. A single T34-85 caught three King Tigers by surprise while they were making their way towards the front, and knocked all of them out (source: Osprey title T34-85)
@SmedleyDouwright: No, but with that long-barrelled, hard-hitting 88mm, you know it didn't turn out well for that Pershing caught unawares. The 88 was very potent anti-tank/AA gun. Urban armored doctrine generally has infantry supporting the tanks in the city, for just such situations. An infantry anti-tank team would have made short work of a big, ponderous tank destroyer like the Nashorn, or at least been able to damage it enough to render it inoperable.
@rdas188: Nashorn had a potent main gun, but it was ponderous and difficult to aim. Pershings didn't make it into the war in large-enough numbers to make a difference.
American tanks could have been as good as German tanks if the US wanted them to, they just had a good tank the M4 Sherman and didn't want to change it, also the Sherman was outmatched in Europe because the Sherman was built for Panzer 3s and early Panzer 4s not Tigers and Panthers.
@takirid I was taking about the M4A1 fighting Panzer 4s with short 75mm, The M4A1 was no match for the Panzer 4 with long 75mm, but an M4A2 with 75/76mm armor could take hits from the Panzer 4 with it's long 75mm, you must be taking about the M4A1 with 56mm armor.
@jacobwolf124: It was known as early as 1943 that the M4 was inadequately armed and protected against the latest German designs, but upgrading to a heavier tank, such as the M26 Pershing, was delayed in part due to concerns about shipping space available to ferry them across the Atlantic. Influential generals such as Patton turned down a heavier tank, believing such a design would not be mobile-enough for fast moving operations.
@jacobwolf124: The Sherman's defects are now well-known, it's thin armor, tendency to brew up when hit, too-narrow tracks and poor floatation, and a weak main gun. It's turret was too small to permit easy installation of a bigger gun, but the Brits managed to cram their excellent 17-pounder into it, and it proved to be a tank killer capable of taking out even the heaviest German tanks if using APDS (sabot) ammo. We should have used the same gun, but our ordnance people refused.
@jacobwolf124: Another reason we didn't field a better tank than the Sherman was that our doctrine called for tanks to be used in mobile attacks with infantry, while tank destroyers tackled the tanks. By war's end, we had several TDs that could handle German tanks, such as the M-36 with the 90mm gun, but of course, you didn't get to choose whether your tanks or TDs met the enemy. Consequently, sometimes our Shermans got clobbered.
@jacobwolf124 The British and later the US believed they had a superior tank to the Germans in N Africa. It was late in 42 in Tunisia that the Brits realized that the Germans had a better tank which they captured after the crew abandon the tank.It was late in 43 and 44 that the Brits & the Yanks started to struggle with these newer tanks. Then the call went out to build a better tank to try an match the better German vehicles,thats why they relied on the M4A1,and the M4A2 with the 76mm gun.
@takirid Well I had some bad specs on those tanks till now, I was thinking the Sherman had 75-76mm on their hull when the hull was a weak 52-55mm with some slope, but I still love the Shermans and would have fought in one never the less, still, we had our TDs like the M18 Hellcat and the M36 Slugger. Also we had brave tankers to fight in something as weak as those.
@jacobwolf124: If you haven't seen it, read Belton Cooper's book "Death Traps." Cooper was an armor ordance officer in WWII in the ETO and has probably seen more battle-damaged American tanks than any man alive, not to mention many British and German as well. The Sherman was pathetically armored and under-gunned in the earlier variants, but it was rugged, reliable, easily serviced (with some exceptions), relatively fast, and its 75mm was a good infantry support weapon.
@GeorgiaBoy1961 I was going to post the same info about Lt. Cooper's book. I'm glad to see someone else beat me to it. It's a great resource to fans of armor combat in western Europe in the Second World War.
@nikfred4 : Glad you read Cooper's book also, which is about a neglected portion of the ETO war. Mr. Cooper must be quite elderly now, if he is still alive... I hopr he is doing well.
@jacobwolf124: The Sherman's chief virtue was that we built so many of them, and we could afford to trade multiple Shermans for each German medium or heavy tank we knocked out. This is very tough on crews, though, and we lost too many good men in Shermans that "brewed up" after being hit. It was also frustrating and damaging to morale, seeing our 75 and 76mm shells bounce off German armor, knowing that they could put shells through the Sherman at will.
@jacobwolf124: I have a ton of respect for the Allied tankers of WWII, who went into battle, more often than not, in technologically inferior vehicles against their German counterparts. Those were some brave men to keep coming even as they saw their buddies being lit up. Thanks heavens for our heavier TDs, such as the M36, our artillery, and command of the air.
@takirid: The British equipped the Sherman with the 17-pounder anti-tank cannon, and it proved to be a potent tank killer. We Americans should have used the same modification, but our brass were too prideful and stupid to do so.
I did not say anything about the armor not being pierced, all I said is that it took three shots to knock out the Panther,dose that bother you the my friend
Yeah right, thats why it took them three shots to kill one the panther,an that was at close range,dont forget the panther crew were engaged with 3,M4 Shermans before itself being hit at least it went down fighting to the end with 3 M4 to its tally
@SaintsSpecOps he not say anything about rounds not piercing the armor. he say it took 3 shots to kill tank. but first shot is what killed tank this why tank commander do bail out of tank.
@takirid hello, the first shot killed the commander, and the next shot ammo racked the tank and caught it on fire... third shot wasn't needed but they were testing the M26.
I think if the Panther could have been moved the Pershing would be in deep trouble, no german panzerkommandant would let face the sides of his tank to the enemy they are much weaker than front maybe broken engine gear or more usual lack of fuel.
OMG! Finely! After many years. The Americans where able to take this one Panther out with their new M26 Pershing by using armor piercing shells. However this Panther was 3 years old.
@nico93black Pershing is a crap tank,Panther better tank in fact its the best all round tank of ww2 .The clip we have just seen dose not show what the Panther had done to three M4 tanks before itself was knocked out,I think three of the crew survived.
@takirid Panther couldnt do shit against a Pershing. Dont get me wrong panther is good, but the 90mm of the pershing would rip a new asshole for the panther to shit out of
@takirid: Not so fast, takirid... the M26 series spawned the M46-48 MBT series which equipped the U.S. and NATO well into the 1990s. The M26 was a well-designed and executed MBT with one flaw - it was somewhat underpowered. That was corrected in the M46 after the war. The Panther and the M26 were roughly equivalent in capability, according to most armor historians. The Panther was prone to mechanical problems, and many were lost due to engine fires. It was also complex and costly.
@takirid: Many armor historians would give the honor of the best tank of the war to the T34, the design upon which the Panther was based. The T34-85 (the up-gunned version with an 85mm cannon) was a very good tank. There's no question the Panther was a formidible tank; once its teething problems were solved, it proved to be a potent weapon. The Panzertruppen liked the hitting power of the Tiger, but it was too heavy for bridges, gulped petrol, and was tough to service in the field.
@GeorgiaBoy1961They lost more Armor to the German, then the German lost to them. Same on the western front. Mind you they built thousands more than Germans anyway.
That's awful. As an American, I am ashamed of what this country did during WW2. The U.S. should have joined with Germany and purged the world of zionist scum once and for all.
He hit the panther in the SIDE with a freakin 90mm gun, and he didn't even began to burn imidiately, you shot even a second round and the panther didnt even fire!
The american are douchebags and the worst kind, they saw the remaining of the German tank crew fled from the burning tank yet still put two more rounds to murder the defenseless, but you don't see the German tank crews did that to the Sherman tank crews, I surely hope these so-called WW2 american war heroes burn in hell for eternity, and I am so glad to see more and more american are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, you pigs desire it.
@1939Ironcross why don't you look up German war atrocities during WWII to us combat personnel try the Ardenes offensive task force Pieper didn't take prisoners. and the Americans most of the time took prisoners as well as treated them right learn history before you make your self look like an idiotic bigot who doesn't know anything
@1939Ironcross Hey, I can first hand confirm that at least one Panther tank with Otto Schafer as the gunner told me face to face they let the allied crews get out and run for it if they could. I worked with Otto as a machinist in America. Otto was a great old school manual machinist and he told me he was NOT a nazi, But you have to fight for your country.
@1939Ironcross: Grow up and pull your head out of the sand, or wherever else you have got it. I don't know where you got the wrong information that German crews were always merciful; they were not. They didn't hesitate to destroy thousands of Allied tanks and then machine gun their crews; that was standard practice on the eastern front - no quarter. Why did that Pershing put three shots into the Panther? To make sure that tank and crew would never fight again.
Perhpas it's written before me but some the tankcrew from the Colone Panther survived and hidde in the cathedral in contrary what the soldier said in this show.
Didn't you know that every German tank during the later part of the war were identified (accidentally or otherwise) by the western allies as Tiger! Such was the "fear" of the Tigers.
i thought the pershing didnt make it to the war i guess i was wrong unless these are korean war mixes with ww2 footage prob not i just man i thought its was a post war developed tank
@WorstCommenter2008: Wrong.... try getting educated; the Abrams is the finest MBT in the world and has the combat record to prove it. Germany gets a tip of the hat, though, because the Abram's 120mm smoothbore is German-made by Rheinmetal GMB (not sure of the spelling). The Leopard and British Chieftain are also elite-level MBTs today.
@ThePanzerWarMachine A total of 310 M26 (T26E3) model made it to Europe but only 20 saw combat which a few got knocked out and a single Super Pershing saw combat
@flyboyreloaded No, those are the streets of Cologne, at 3:06 you can clearly see the Dom (Cathedral) in the background and the castellated walled building across the road still stands today.
Не верьте ни единому слову, что говорит в кадре этот старый пердун! Он называет танк "тигром". Еще вопросы есть? И это типа "ветеран", который его подбил... Нашли бича на помойке, дали бухла - вот тебе и "мемуары".
Tell that to people who have survived it and to those Wifes and Mothers who Recieved a Telegram from the U.S or German Goverment that their Loved ones died?
taht was a hit to the side of the panther where the armor is less thick.... if hat shell would have hit the front glascias plate then they would have survived easily
@SuperSixRider Just to make things clear.....American GI's used the term "Tiger" very frequently in WW2 to describe any German Heavy Panzer. Im not saying that by now, the man shouldnt have known the correct term.....but again, it was very common to hear Panthers called Tigers by GIs
@SuperSixRider 3 members did indeed survive. However 1 died soon after from his injuries. The 2 that survived were captured when trying to escape on foot
@germanairsoft12 you are a fucking retard! The Germans while they did have great armor divisions. Had a horrible leader. I get having pride for your country. As I'm American and I bleed red white and blue. But you are a fucking idiot to EVER say that one country is 2x better than another. Especially since ur faggot ass country lost. I respect Germans but I don't respect people like u.
This is really disturbing and pissing me off at the same time how they dont show how the german's were 2x as better as the american army and beat their ass and shot and burned them to fuckin death but they show the fatherland get shot like this? This is a very rear vid I hardly ever c the germans getting killed cause their 2x better! And even tho germany was and still is better the american army and the mother land had 4x more ppl then they did and they still almost kicked their ass!
@germanairsoft12: Calm down and take a deep breath... hate to break it to you, but Germany lost WWII. Yes, they had some elite and outstanding forces, but guess what? The Soviets in the East, and the Anglo-Americans in the West beat them. Why? They were better when the chips were down. Rather than going off as you have, perhaps you might care to read a very good history of the war, written by Richard Overy, called "Why the Allies Won." Read it and learn.
That's hardcore combat footage, but in fact the cold reality of being a tanker. Even though the Germans were our enemies then, you still gotta hate to see somebody killed as violently as that. But on the other hand, how many Americans died the same way from taking direct hits from that very same Panther in the video?
@0willsy01: "If" the German Generals had won the argument to try and withdraw in the winter of '41 then the Siberian reserve counter-offensive hits the Germans as they retreat and we get a big German defeat in winter '41-'42 ...maybe that brings Turkey into the war on the Allied side in '42? Maybe the British get their asses in gear and have a decent sized Army available for the summer of '40 with a good medium tank armed with a 6 pounder gun. The 'ifs" are endless for BOTH sides.
@0willsy01: And a few "ifs" could have seen the war won for the Allies much sooner. It is tiresome to see constant claims that the Germans lost mainly because of mistakes or mis-management. If the French had "proper" Armoured divisions then the war ends in 1940. If Stalin hadn't purged his military officer class in the mid-30's then the war ends in 1941 ...if the Russians had organised their armoured force effectively then the war, again, ends in 1941. The "ifs" work both ways.
ich hatt einen kameraden made this vidoe verry toching in that i feel for those poor bastards horrible way to go .....ich fur Deutschland minen gutt kameraden
pnz4aufsh 1 day ago
Better watch your ass when you go up against the US military
StratoBlaster420 2 days ago
@StratoBlaster420
you should say that about the German army. the Modern American Army is based onto the German army.
ThePanzerWarMachine 2 days ago 6
@ThePanzerWarMachine ???? I see no resemblance between the two.Please elaborate.
nowthisis2stupid 1 day ago
@nowthisis2stupid
The Modernday American Army is based onto the basic Waffen SS and Wehrmacht lay-out during the second world war.
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 day ago 2
@ThePanzerWarMachine Oh ok, yeah I've heard that from several different sources. But I wouldn't say that makes the entire US military based on the German Army. Similar at best.
nowthisis2stupid 1 day ago
@StratoBlaster420 Well their allies certainly have to watch out.
mrswinkyuk 1 day ago
What's the song in this video? Much appreciated!
TEAMGODdotNET 3 days ago
@TEAMGODdotNET "Ich hatt' einen Kameraden" (I had a Comrade...), a church style slow march song for fallen soldiers, was sung at funerals or in the field.
matt47110815 1 day ago
@matt47110815 sorry for voteing down cliked on wrong one
pnz4aufsh 1 day ago
the man in this video said that it was a tiger tank that was destroyed by the m26,but it is actually a panther 1 tank,take a closer look at the turret,and also the overall size of the tank,much smaller than a tiger,just for correction sake!!
6548ww 4 days ago 2
@6548ww
from an allied tanker point of view. Any German Tank, wich is capeble of killing a sherman Tank with one shot is a ''Tiger''. In Normandy, only 90 Tiger tank Served in 2 Regiments, but every tank was claimed to be a Tger. The Panther was a real nasty suprise to anyone who stumbled upon them, But well into '44 Allied Intel wasen't sure of the ''Panther's'' performance.
ThePanzerWarMachine 4 days ago 3
С рускими титрами хотябы есть нет это видео?
Mainric 1 week ago
ahhhh americans...they destroyed 1 ''TIGER'' hiting him in the side with their BIG guns,the germans were no match with their 88s
zlaki993 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this is not war this is murder... they should have stop firing after the tank was disabled and the crew was trying to get out.... instead they fired again and again...
bogdy007 2 weeks ago
Defending their own country from pre WWI... damn Bolshevism & modern day Zionism
Domdeone1 2 weeks ago
He said Tiger so now everything he says is now invalid.
EmoCactus 2 weeks ago
If only they had built tanks like the Pershing earlier. Maybe a lot less brave men would have burned to death in their tin can Shermans...
xCh34pShOtx 3 weeks ago
@xCh34pShOtx You can thank A guy named McNair for a thing called the "Tank Destroyer Doctrine" This administratively limited the M-4 tank to a low velocity 75mm gun, when it should have had a very high velocity gun. This was so because the sherman was to be only an infantry support tank, and not engage other tanks on their own. Tanks were to be the target of tank destroyer units. This was a terrible idea, and its implementation caused so many needless casualties.
beardo52 3 weeks ago 5
@beardo52 Was this the same guy who prevented the Jumbo Sherman from being used earlier and the 90 mm sherman from being produced?
dardo1201 1 week ago
@dardo1201 Not sure of his later activity regarding the M-4, but the M-4A3-E2 Jumbo was a short run vehicle, only 250 or so made. they all had the low velocity 75mm gun. Some had field upgrades to the high velocity 76.2mm gun, only the gun tube needed changing, and an alteration to the ammo storage for the much longer round. The larger T-33 turret of the Jumbo made this possible. It is doubtful that the M-4 could take the 90 mm gun, as sufficient ammo storage would be near impossible
beardo52 1 week ago
@xCh34pShOtx But the Sherman does had its own advantage. They have destroyed many more T-34s in Korea than all other tanks combined. Unless the opponent is a heavy tank, the late model 76mm Shermans can take care of it.
RaptureandZune 3 weeks ago
@xCh34pShOtx Erwin Rommel was defeated in North Africa by British Commander Bernard Montgomery using American Grant and Sherman tanks. ;)
lander4545 2 weeks ago
@lander4545 My point wasn't who won, but the cost of "winning". I certainly would pick being on foot rather than being inside a Sherman if I was in WWII.
xCh34pShOtx 2 weeks ago
@xCh34pShOtx The "cost"?? Would be better to ask the Germans of WW11 that question. ;)
lander4545 2 weeks ago
The best version of this film, shows when the panther its the sherman, the comander escapes with no leg and one more crew member. 2 of 5. When the m26 hits the panther i see all the crew alive and looks very well to me
Airsoftbraga 3 weeks ago
georgiab1981,,the predecessor,or grandad of the a10 was the republic thunderbolt,wt 7 tons,8 x 50 cal guns,could carry ex fuel,cannons,2 500 lbrs,quentin anansen (the PBS special) shot up xxxk column miles of sometimes retreating german armored units,the bullets caused limbs torsos to fly in the air,guy still had nightmares of this up to his death a few years ago.
tkelly411 4 weeks ago
0:42 did he just say tank commander in the "Tiger"? -_-
TheHandiQuack 1 month ago 17
@TheHandiQuack
I think the title of this video is wrong...
vascularcylinder 1 week ago
@vascularcylinder Nope, it's the old man's fault, ThePanzerWarMachine knows what he's doing, it's definately a Panther ;)
TheHandiQuack 1 week ago
@vascularcylinder
what is wrong with this title ?
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 week ago
Everyone thinks that if Russia was defeated the U.S AND BRITAIN would loose. No way the Germans would have to first invade Britain and they couldn't do that because they were at getting beat in the air! Anyway either way the Atom bomb would have been ready in 1945 and we would of used it on Germany until they surrendered. If the U.S DIDN'T HAVE TO SUPPLY Russia with the millions of dollars worth of trucks, planes, bullets, bombs, ext. Most people do not realize that Russia got more of are goods
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
I totally agree with you with 17-pounder.
takirid 1 month ago
Eisenhower said that the carnage from that attack was so violent that you could walk for miles stepping on nothing but dead people, animals, armor. He said danm them Germans for making us do this to them! Well said!
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
True dat that's way it's name is the thunderbolt 2. Lol it's a beast! But still nothing beats operation cobra where those medium and heavy bombers decimated those king tigers and panthers and horses and guns. That footage is amazing the german soldiers that survived had blood dripping from there eye balls and ears and nose. That was probably horrific for them!
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
Js1 was a turkey so the German tank commanders say. Michael whittman got hit twice at put blank range and it did not penetrate! Could be a lie but it is confirmed by others on the battle field. He didn't even notice it cause it was so close to his tank buried in the forest. He turned the tigers turret and blew the js1 to bits!
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
But the germans would always target the firefly or super 8 first. Because it caused a serious threat! There were not enough of them. Man if the U.S JUST WOULD HAVE CUT THE RED TAPE ON THE PERSHING AND SUPER PERSHING THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALOT LESS TANK CASUALTIES! THERE WAS A GUY ON THE HISTORY CH. THE OTHER DAY THAT SAID THE GENERALS HAD COMMITTED A MAJOR CRIME BY DELAYING THE M-26 Pershing! I AGREE
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
All you need is a typhoon or a thunderbolt. Open those German tanks up like sardine cans. Lol
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
@Brandonbigone87: Yep, that's true. Can you imagine what a modern tank hunting aircraft like an A-10 would do to those German tanks? Actually, the A-10 is descended from WWII in a way, because its designers interviewed Hans-Ulrich Rudel, the Stuka ground-attack pilot who flew more than 2500 missions and killed more than 500 tanks in the east. He was the most highly decorated member of the German armed forces.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
Yea your right, I was thinking of the elephant self propelled gun. The late stage of that sp was 240mm the early was 200mm frontal. Anyway the point is the Pershing's main gun could penetrate even that. If you read the specs you can see how and why it was made.
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
The panther couldn't, but tiger could. The Pershing was still a medium tank but the gun was considered the equal ir better then the flak 24-36 88mm. In fact it was designed specifically to beat the 88. And most people do not realize that the British 17 pounder had more penetrating power at longer distance then the 88 as well but had a blinding muzzle flash at night. Hard to follow up another shot but they adapted.
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
@Brandonbigone87: Correct, concerning the 17-pounder, which had a higher muzzle velocity than the 88mm, and superior penetration using APDS ammo, i.e. armor piercing discarding sabot subcaliber rounds. Almost everyone had a high velociy, flat-shooting anti-aircraft cannon that could be adapted to anti-tank use, the Germans were just the first to do it and adapted the 88 to multiple uses.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
Trust me im not the usual person on u-TUBE that spits shit out without being able to back it up. I can send you the crew eye witness statement if you like. They had a modified t-50 Pershing with thicker armor but same gun.
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
No man it's not a video. It is a statement from the tank crew. And yes the t-26 or m-26 Pershings 90mm high velocity cannon was designed to penetrate 9 inches of armor. And king tiger was 240 mm thick.
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
@Brandonbigone87 The King Tiger had 150mm armor.
jacobwolf124 1 month ago
I totaly agree with you " but then again the the good old USA was not bombed to hell ,like the Germnans. They had 5yrs to sort out a better tank and it came late 45. The earlier Panther's had problems"once they sorted those problems out it became the best tank of the war especially the Panther G.
takirid 1 month ago
There is a rare video if anybody wants to see it. A m26 Pershing blowing off a king tiger turret with the first shot! Front armor as well. Which was very thick!
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
@Brandonbigone87: Brandon, FYI, no King Tiger was ever known to be penetrated frontally during the war and knocked out; its armor was that thick! What you are seeing in this video is a Panther being knocked out; their profiles were similar so it is easy to mistake one for the other.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
what about king tiger vs pershing
Heer88 1 month ago
How can someone trust anything this guy says when he can't even identify the tank properly? I feel like I'm watching one of those crappy History Channel tank specials where they misidentify a Jagdpanzer IV as a Jagdtiger.
LSchroll 2 months ago
It breaks my heart to see such a sexy beast go up in flames God damnit America! SHAME ON YOU
SMGJohn 2 months ago
what would happend if that tank was a tiger and not a panther?
MrSpy3000 2 months ago
@MrSpy3000 same result. The pershing had a massive gun by ww2 standards, at that range it would have gone straight through the side armour.
thenoobfactor 2 months ago
@thenoobfactor 2 mm bigger
MrSpy3000 2 months ago
@MrSpy3000 2mm is a huge difference in the guns ability to penetrate armour.
thenoobfactor 2 months ago
@thenoobfactor yeah, but not close combat, det tiger was able to take out a is-2 in close combat, something michael wittman did. and thats a huge caliber under ww2, the tiger would slice the pershings head of and feed it to the konigs tiger
MrSpy3000 2 months ago
@MrSpy3000 The panthers gun likely would have destroyed the pershing as well. But you asked about an almost identical scenario where instead of a panther there is a tiger on the end of the street. The pershing shot first in the actual engagement, because of its advanced stabilization it likely would have shot first against the tiger. And thats what the end result comes down to in urban combat, whoever shoots first.
thenoobfactor 2 months ago
@MrSpy3000: 2mm? The Pershing had a 90mm gun, more than powerful-enough to penetrate a Panther (or Tiger) from the side. The Panther had a high-velocity 75mm main gun, not an 88mm, as the Tiger did.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 and do you know what i talked about? the tiger! and both tiger and panther would penetrate the pershing. but didnt get the shot
MrSpy3000 1 month ago
@MrSpy3000: probably the same result; the Tiger I was a formidable MBT, but very heavy and not quick to turn or rotate its turret. The 90mm gun on the Pershing could penetrate the weaker side armor of the Tiger fairly easily, just as with the Panther. Frontally, it would have been tougher.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 Hmmm, I don't recall any sources naming the Tiger I as an MBT - if anything, the Panther is better to be called an MBT. MBTs practically have a mix in both the roles of light, medium, heavy and super-heavy tanks in firepower, weight, cost (maybe), mobility and armor. The Tiger I, for certain was not balanced in cost, weight and mobility to an extent (it was still quite fast compared to the Sherman and T-34 despite being almost twice the weight).
88Scatter 1 month ago
@88Scatter: Actually, I think I am guilty of using modern terminology - "main battle tank" - that had not yet been invented during WWII, when it was more common to classify tanks as light, medium or heavy, along with more eccentric terms such as the British "cruiser" et al. By German standards, the 46-ton M26 Pershing would have been considered a medium tank, equivalent to the Panther, as you note. The U.S. Army originally classified it as a heavy tank.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@88Scatter: What qualifies as a medium vs. heavy tank can get ambiguous, though... because the M26 had a larger caliber gun than the Panther, 90mm versus 75mm, but similar weight and protection. The Soviet IS-2 Stalin tank, also 46 tons, mounted a massive 122mm main gun, but had protection no better than the Pershing or Panther, and arguably worse. I would call the Tiger I a heavy tank, at 60 tons, but then what do you call the King Tiger at 68 tons, let alone the Maus?
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@MrSpy3000: Panther or Tiger, it doesn't matter. Either one would have been knocked out and probably blown up or burned after being hit through its thinner side armor. Allied tankers quickly learned - after seeing the thickness of German frontal armor on tanks like these - that the best way to knock out German armor was by flanking it and taking side and rear shots. We also turned captured German panzerfausts on them to great effect.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
how about Pershing vs. Nashorn. You yangees remember how that went, huh?
rdas188 2 months ago
@rdas188
Rather embarishing for the pershing..
ThePanzerWarMachine 2 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine: No, not really... a well-armed tank or tank destroyer on the defensive, waiting in ambush, has an inherent advantage compared to the armor attacking it. There are numerous instances on both sides - Allied and Axis - of single tanks delaying or beating back attacks by a larger number of tanks. A single T34-85 caught three King Tigers by surprise while they were making their way towards the front, and knocked all of them out (source: Osprey title T34-85)
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@rdas188 Is there video of the M26 vs Nashorn fight on youtube?
SmedleyDouwright 2 months ago
@SmedleyDouwright: No, but with that long-barrelled, hard-hitting 88mm, you know it didn't turn out well for that Pershing caught unawares. The 88 was very potent anti-tank/AA gun. Urban armored doctrine generally has infantry supporting the tanks in the city, for just such situations. An infantry anti-tank team would have made short work of a big, ponderous tank destroyer like the Nashorn, or at least been able to damage it enough to render it inoperable.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@rdas188: Nashorn had a potent main gun, but it was ponderous and difficult to aim. Pershings didn't make it into the war in large-enough numbers to make a difference.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@rdas188 how about Nashorn vs. BB Iowa. You nazi never learn that WW2 is over 70yrs ago.
keiweak 1 month ago
насколько я знаю экипаж першинга победил, потеряли 1 шерман и 3 человека
skyjacker70rus 3 months ago
American tanks could have been as good as German tanks if the US wanted them to, they just had a good tank the M4 Sherman and didn't want to change it, also the Sherman was outmatched in Europe because the Sherman was built for Panzer 3s and early Panzer 4s not Tigers and Panthers.
jacobwolf124 3 months ago
@jacobwolf124 Panzer 4 with its long 75mm wasted M4 Sherman with ease
takirid 2 months ago
@takirid I was taking about the M4A1 fighting Panzer 4s with short 75mm, The M4A1 was no match for the Panzer 4 with long 75mm, but an M4A2 with 75/76mm armor could take hits from the Panzer 4 with it's long 75mm, you must be taking about the M4A1 with 56mm armor.
jacobwolf124 2 months ago
@jacobwolf124 Even the M4A2 was no match for the Panzer 4 long 75mm gun.
takirid 1 month ago
@jacobwolf124: It was known as early as 1943 that the M4 was inadequately armed and protected against the latest German designs, but upgrading to a heavier tank, such as the M26 Pershing, was delayed in part due to concerns about shipping space available to ferry them across the Atlantic. Influential generals such as Patton turned down a heavier tank, believing such a design would not be mobile-enough for fast moving operations.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@jacobwolf124: The Sherman's defects are now well-known, it's thin armor, tendency to brew up when hit, too-narrow tracks and poor floatation, and a weak main gun. It's turret was too small to permit easy installation of a bigger gun, but the Brits managed to cram their excellent 17-pounder into it, and it proved to be a tank killer capable of taking out even the heaviest German tanks if using APDS (sabot) ammo. We should have used the same gun, but our ordnance people refused.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@jacobwolf124: Another reason we didn't field a better tank than the Sherman was that our doctrine called for tanks to be used in mobile attacks with infantry, while tank destroyers tackled the tanks. By war's end, we had several TDs that could handle German tanks, such as the M-36 with the 90mm gun, but of course, you didn't get to choose whether your tanks or TDs met the enemy. Consequently, sometimes our Shermans got clobbered.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@jacobwolf124 The British and later the US believed they had a superior tank to the Germans in N Africa. It was late in 42 in Tunisia that the Brits realized that the Germans had a better tank which they captured after the crew abandon the tank.It was late in 43 and 44 that the Brits & the Yanks started to struggle with these newer tanks. Then the call went out to build a better tank to try an match the better German vehicles,thats why they relied on the M4A1,and the M4A2 with the 76mm gun.
takirid 1 month ago
@takirid Well I had some bad specs on those tanks till now, I was thinking the Sherman had 75-76mm on their hull when the hull was a weak 52-55mm with some slope, but I still love the Shermans and would have fought in one never the less, still, we had our TDs like the M18 Hellcat and the M36 Slugger. Also we had brave tankers to fight in something as weak as those.
jacobwolf124 1 month ago
@jacobwolf124: If you haven't seen it, read Belton Cooper's book "Death Traps." Cooper was an armor ordance officer in WWII in the ETO and has probably seen more battle-damaged American tanks than any man alive, not to mention many British and German as well. The Sherman was pathetically armored and under-gunned in the earlier variants, but it was rugged, reliable, easily serviced (with some exceptions), relatively fast, and its 75mm was a good infantry support weapon.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961 I was going to post the same info about Lt. Cooper's book. I'm glad to see someone else beat me to it. It's a great resource to fans of armor combat in western Europe in the Second World War.
nikfred4 2 weeks ago
@nikfred4 : Glad you read Cooper's book also, which is about a neglected portion of the ETO war. Mr. Cooper must be quite elderly now, if he is still alive... I hopr he is doing well.
GeorgiaBoy1961 2 weeks ago
@jacobwolf124: The Sherman's chief virtue was that we built so many of them, and we could afford to trade multiple Shermans for each German medium or heavy tank we knocked out. This is very tough on crews, though, and we lost too many good men in Shermans that "brewed up" after being hit. It was also frustrating and damaging to morale, seeing our 75 and 76mm shells bounce off German armor, knowing that they could put shells through the Sherman at will.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@jacobwolf124: I have a ton of respect for the Allied tankers of WWII, who went into battle, more often than not, in technologically inferior vehicles against their German counterparts. Those were some brave men to keep coming even as they saw their buddies being lit up. Thanks heavens for our heavier TDs, such as the M36, our artillery, and command of the air.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@takirid: The British equipped the Sherman with the 17-pounder anti-tank cannon, and it proved to be a potent tank killer. We Americans should have used the same modification, but our brass were too prideful and stupid to do so.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
war is so much fun!
pretorious700 3 months ago
@pretorious700 you should listen to the tank commander that was in the Pershing for his prospective of "war".
liberalinthedesertaz 2 months ago
I did not say anything about the armor not being pierced, all I said is that it took three shots to knock out the Panther,dose that bother you the my friend
takirid 3 months ago
Yeah right, thats why it took them three shots to kill one the panther,an that was at close range,dont forget the panther crew were engaged with 3,M4 Shermans before itself being hit at least it went down fighting to the end with 3 M4 to its tally
takirid 3 months ago
@takirid
just because it took 3 shots to cause an explosion doesn't mean the rounds weren't piercing the armor...
SaintsSpecOps 3 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps he not say anything about rounds not piercing the armor. he say it took 3 shots to kill tank. but first shot is what killed tank this why tank commander do bail out of tank.
CommissarofPravda 3 months ago
@takirid hello, the first shot killed the commander, and the next shot ammo racked the tank and caught it on fire... third shot wasn't needed but they were testing the M26.
liberalinthedesertaz 2 months ago
@liberalinthedesertaz Third shot a test shot no way bro he was looking to wipe them out
takirid 2 months ago
@caganb go fuck youseft you cunt
mrmurtagh11 3 months ago
war gestern in kölle... kann man sich garnicht vorstellen!!!
clintinterface 3 months ago
I think if the Panther could have been moved the Pershing would be in deep trouble, no german panzerkommandant would let face the sides of his tank to the enemy they are much weaker than front maybe broken engine gear or more usual lack of fuel.
mjoelnir58 3 months ago
@mjoelnir58
i doubt the panthers 76mm gun could pierce the pershings front armor
SaintsSpecOps 3 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps
You mean the panther's 75mm Gun?
ThePanzerWarMachine 3 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine yeah 75mm
SaintsSpecOps 3 months ago
@SaintsSpecOps Panzergranate 40 (Hk) (Pzgr. 40/42)
1500 m: 127 mm
Average penetration performance established against rolled homogenous steel armor plate laid back at 30° from the vertical thanks to wikipedia ,
mjoelnir58 3 months ago
american soldier looting the dead - nice
mjoelnir58 3 months ago
OMG! Finely! After many years. The Americans where able to take this one Panther out with their new M26 Pershing by using armor piercing shells. However this Panther was 3 years old.
SMGJohn 3 months ago
Pershing is better than Panther, anyway it's worse than Tiger and King Tiger...
nico93black 4 months ago
@nico93black Pershing is a crap tank,Panther better tank in fact its the best all round tank of ww2 .The clip we have just seen dose not show what the Panther had done to three M4 tanks before itself was knocked out,I think three of the crew survived.
takirid 3 months ago
@takirid Panther couldnt do shit against a Pershing. Dont get me wrong panther is good, but the 90mm of the pershing would rip a new asshole for the panther to shit out of
jangotrooper 3 months ago
@jangotrooper hello did you watch the video?
liberalinthedesertaz 2 months ago
@takirid: Not so fast, takirid... the M26 series spawned the M46-48 MBT series which equipped the U.S. and NATO well into the 1990s. The M26 was a well-designed and executed MBT with one flaw - it was somewhat underpowered. That was corrected in the M46 after the war. The Panther and the M26 were roughly equivalent in capability, according to most armor historians. The Panther was prone to mechanical problems, and many were lost due to engine fires. It was also complex and costly.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@takirid: Many armor historians would give the honor of the best tank of the war to the T34, the design upon which the Panther was based. The T34-85 (the up-gunned version with an 85mm cannon) was a very good tank. There's no question the Panther was a formidible tank; once its teething problems were solved, it proved to be a potent weapon. The Panzertruppen liked the hitting power of the Tiger, but it was too heavy for bridges, gulped petrol, and was tough to service in the field.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@GeorgiaBoy1961They lost more Armor to the German, then the German lost to them. Same on the western front. Mind you they built thousands more than Germans anyway.
takirid 1 month ago
надо было вас ублюдков вальнуть в след за немцами
pravdadn 4 months ago
eerrrmm......... its not a tiger its a panther, also i see nothing of a sherman as discription says ???
cheersing4u 4 months ago
@cheersing4u You can see the destroyed sherman at 2:34 ,the tank commander crawls out moments later. He bled to death before a medic could arrive.
BNRG1 4 months ago
That's awful. As an American, I am ashamed of what this country did during WW2. The U.S. should have joined with Germany and purged the world of zionist scum once and for all.
SSRogue88 4 months ago
ich hatt einen kameraden
einen bessren findste nicht
die trommel schlug zu streite
er ging an meiner seite
als wers ein stück von mir....
HEIL DEN DEUTSCHEN SOLDATEN!!!!!
TheRedSkin2009 4 months ago
He hit the panther in the SIDE with a freakin 90mm gun, and he didn't even began to burn imidiately, you shot even a second round and the panther didnt even fire!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
MadGuyMunich 4 months ago
@caganb shut the fuck up, say that if you ever get drafted
arc175 4 months ago
The american are douchebags and the worst kind, they saw the remaining of the German tank crew fled from the burning tank yet still put two more rounds to murder the defenseless, but you don't see the German tank crews did that to the Sherman tank crews, I surely hope these so-called WW2 american war heroes burn in hell for eternity, and I am so glad to see more and more american are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, you pigs desire it.
1939Ironcross 4 months ago
@1939Ironcross why don't you look up German war atrocities during WWII to us combat personnel try the Ardenes offensive task force Pieper didn't take prisoners. and the Americans most of the time took prisoners as well as treated them right learn history before you make your self look like an idiotic bigot who doesn't know anything
tinsley423 4 months ago
@1939Ironcross Hey, I can first hand confirm that at least one Panther tank with Otto Schafer as the gunner told me face to face they let the allied crews get out and run for it if they could. I worked with Otto as a machinist in America. Otto was a great old school manual machinist and he told me he was NOT a nazi, But you have to fight for your country.
captjim007 4 months ago
@1939Ironcross: Grow up and pull your head out of the sand, or wherever else you have got it. I don't know where you got the wrong information that German crews were always merciful; they were not. They didn't hesitate to destroy thousands of Allied tanks and then machine gun their crews; that was standard practice on the eastern front - no quarter. Why did that Pershing put three shots into the Panther? To make sure that tank and crew would never fight again.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
My forefathers fought in the Wehrmact, This video makes me sad for them.
Miratesus 4 months ago
Perhpas it's written before me but some the tankcrew from the Colone Panther survived and hidde in the cathedral in contrary what the soldier said in this show.
ebbergman 4 months ago
The vet narator must need stronger glasses, this is a Panther not a Tiger tank. But you probably already knew that. Cheeky bugger.
5eugenic1 5 months ago
@5eugenic1
Didn't you know that every German tank during the later part of the war were identified (accidentally or otherwise) by the western allies as Tiger! Such was the "fear" of the Tigers.
foxbait888 4 months ago
qu'elle est cette chanson? serait-ce le fameux "j'avais un camarade" qui fut et est toujours un chant de la legion?
papyetmamy62 5 months ago in playlist Vidéos favorites de papyetmamy62
The Germans had amazing technology. I feel bad for them that hitler obscured their judgment.
Fightingirishajf 5 months ago 14
@Fightingirishajf Tha blame for what happened is NOT limited to Hitler.
Germanys darkest hour, and they can blame themselves for it
Lotus2102 1 month ago
Tiger best tank ever!!...i clean my ass w d sherman.
PABLINGAT1972 5 months ago
i thought the pershing didnt make it to the war i guess i was wrong unless these are korean war mixes with ww2 footage prob not i just man i thought its was a post war developed tank
flyboyreloaded 5 months ago 2
@flyboyreloaded
The 12 pershing tank that made it to Europe arrived in the last moment. 2 pershings saw combat, this one and another wich was knocked out in combat.
ThePanzerWarMachine 5 months ago 6
@ThePanzerWarMachine It got knocked out huh? Epic, American's still sucked at making tanks.
WorstCommenter2008 4 months ago
@WorstCommenter2008: Wrong.... try getting educated; the Abrams is the finest MBT in the world and has the combat record to prove it. Germany gets a tip of the hat, though, because the Abram's 120mm smoothbore is German-made by Rheinmetal GMB (not sure of the spelling). The Leopard and British Chieftain are also elite-level MBTs today.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine A total of 310 M26 (T26E3) model made it to Europe but only 20 saw combat which a few got knocked out and a single Super Pershing saw combat
DaManzMoney 4 months ago
@ThePanzerWarMachine its because the US Army was testing its new heavy tank.. The M26 Pershing.
liberalinthedesertaz 2 months ago
@flyboyreloaded It was 100% Cologne I can assure you
TalkToTheBody 5 months ago
@TalkToTheBody for a minute i thought the north koreans got ahold of some nazi panthers
flyboyreloaded 5 months ago
@flyboyreloaded No, those are the streets of Cologne, at 3:06 you can clearly see the Dom (Cathedral) in the background and the castellated walled building across the road still stands today.
TalkToTheBody 5 months ago
@flyboyreloaded approximatly 450 m-26's were delivered by 45...the Korean war m-26's were leftovers as production stopped in may of 45..
PANZERDEAL 4 months ago
Respond to this video... good book 'Death Traps.' shows the experimental m-26-a-3 'Super Pershing.
PANZERDEAL 4 months ago
@flyboyreloaded No 26 M26 pershings made it to the war....... They did practiacally nothing as the war was already won.
Retchmack 3 months ago
@flyboyreloaded They were deployed at the end of the war for field training. What better time to test them out then right at the end of the war?
jangotrooper 3 months ago
@caganb And you are idiot
Foxmang 5 months ago
i love how the old guy at the begining say Tiger tank
SooSneeky 5 months ago
Не верьте ни единому слову, что говорит в кадре этот старый пердун! Он называет танк "тигром". Еще вопросы есть? И это типа "ветеран", который его подбил... Нашли бича на помойке, дали бухла - вот тебе и "мемуары".
nagaitsev1 5 months ago
@caganb
Tell that to people who have survived it and to those Wifes and Mothers who Recieved a Telegram from the U.S or German Goverment that their Loved ones died?
ThePanzerWarMachine 5 months ago 21
Vielleicht solltet den Wehrmacht ein Panzer "Zyklon B" namen. Das war immermehr Deutsch als jede grosse Katz.
mitchberg 5 months ago
taht was a hit to the side of the panther where the armor is less thick.... if hat shell would have hit the front glascias plate then they would have survived easily
popper504 5 months ago
@SuperSixRider Just to make things clear.....American GI's used the term "Tiger" very frequently in WW2 to describe any German Heavy Panzer. Im not saying that by now, the man shouldnt have known the correct term.....but again, it was very common to hear Panthers called Tigers by GIs
12thpanzerHJ 6 months ago
Ive seen this mislabeled before. To my knowledge, this Panther Ausf A is from Panzer Regiment 33 "prinz Eugen" (not SS) - 9th Pz Div..
Can anyone else confirm this?
12thpanzerHJ 6 months ago
@SuperSixRider 3 members did indeed survive. However 1 died soon after from his injuries. The 2 that survived were captured when trying to escape on foot
Luetnant Barthell Bortr
Obergefreiter Otto Koenich
12thpanzerHJ 6 months ago
The dumbass commentator doesn't even know what he's talking about. 0:43 "TIGER". So sad...
ScoopzyDaizy 6 months ago
I cant wait to see the Elefant here in Fort Lee, VA
Imachowderhead 6 months ago
@germanairsoft12 you are a fucking retard! The Germans while they did have great armor divisions. Had a horrible leader. I get having pride for your country. As I'm American and I bleed red white and blue. But you are a fucking idiot to EVER say that one country is 2x better than another. Especially since ur faggot ass country lost. I respect Germans but I don't respect people like u.
cblt2007 6 months ago
erinner dich an die gefallenen kameraden
Ialocin1985 6 months ago
This is really disturbing and pissing me off at the same time how they dont show how the german's were 2x as better as the american army and beat their ass and shot and burned them to fuckin death but they show the fatherland get shot like this? This is a very rear vid I hardly ever c the germans getting killed cause their 2x better! And even tho germany was and still is better the american army and the mother land had 4x more ppl then they did and they still almost kicked their ass!
germanairsoft12 6 months ago
@germanairsoft12: Calm down and take a deep breath... hate to break it to you, but Germany lost WWII. Yes, they had some elite and outstanding forces, but guess what? The Soviets in the East, and the Anglo-Americans in the West beat them. Why? They were better when the chips were down. Rather than going off as you have, perhaps you might care to read a very good history of the war, written by Richard Overy, called "Why the Allies Won." Read it and learn.
GeorgiaBoy1961 1 month ago
is "mein guter kamerad" in the background?
vaevictus 6 months ago
WWII was badass
apotcake13 6 months ago
Well, was the elephant (elefant) tank destroyer a big cat? xDDD
TheWTFworks 6 months ago
5 VS 1.....
GERMANY FOR EVER!
nekoboy75 6 months ago
of all D tanks named after Big cats Tiger,Panther,Puma,Leopard,Cheetah, D only tank that wasnt named after a big cat was D jaguar,
mara66M 7 months ago
That's hardcore combat footage, but in fact the cold reality of being a tanker. Even though the Germans were our enemies then, you still gotta hate to see somebody killed as violently as that. But on the other hand, how many Americans died the same way from taking direct hits from that very same Panther in the video?
Lex5576 8 months ago 3
Америка я считаю ваш вклад в ВОВ жирный ноль!/
Начинаем матюкатса и оскорБЛЯТЬ GO!
имбицилы
MrGorasul 9 months ago
@0willsy01: "If" the German Generals had won the argument to try and withdraw in the winter of '41 then the Siberian reserve counter-offensive hits the Germans as they retreat and we get a big German defeat in winter '41-'42 ...maybe that brings Turkey into the war on the Allied side in '42? Maybe the British get their asses in gear and have a decent sized Army available for the summer of '40 with a good medium tank armed with a 6 pounder gun. The 'ifs" are endless for BOTH sides.
digglyda 9 months ago
@0willsy01: And a few "ifs" could have seen the war won for the Allies much sooner. It is tiresome to see constant claims that the Germans lost mainly because of mistakes or mis-management. If the French had "proper" Armoured divisions then the war ends in 1940. If Stalin hadn't purged his military officer class in the mid-30's then the war ends in 1941 ...if the Russians had organised their armoured force effectively then the war, again, ends in 1941. The "ifs" work both ways.
digglyda 9 months ago