Late-war the Sherman cost about 50% as much as a Tiger but I think if the Germans has a Tiger for every two Shermans they'd have won hands down.
The key factor is the US economy. The US had the production capacity to produce weapons on such a huge scale that the fighting performance of all the Allied divisions was amplified tremendously. They were fully mechanised when the Germans were still using mules.
I'd rather be in a Sherman than a Panzer IV or III (their standard tank of the war), though I would crap my self going against the Tiger series in one.
There were, however, some US Tank Destroyers that freaked the Germans out and gave their heavies a run for their monies such as the M36 with it's turreted 90mm gun and it's little cousin with a 60 mph top speed, m18, and it's 76mm high velocity.
Great video. BTW the desert eagle was used to stop drugged up vietcong. It would pretty much instantly kill them because they wouldnt stop by being hit with normal rounds.
if the sherman is better why was there a Tiger with over 120 destroyed enemy vehicles on his list ? hmm tell me that the tiger was better than those conserves you call "TANK" sorry to say it like that and btw the tiger was the best tank built in WW2 every engenier can tell you that fact he was fast and still powerfull and his armor was better than the armor of King Tiger cause the quality was higher that time it was the best tank in WW2 every guy knows it so dont ignore it just cuz u r from USA
@90Flip90 umm, did you even listen to everything he said? of couse the tiger had better armour and armourment, but it failed in the category of producibility. the allies could afford those 120 plus losses but every tank lost by germany pretty much after normandy was a set back. and how can you possibly say the tiger is faster than the sherman?
@1009sandhurst707 yeah even Revell 1/72 (which is definetely one of the best brands, btw) maxes out anywhere around 15$ to 25$ WHICH IS A PRETTY (sorry caps lock) good price. even though bigger models can be priced in a large range of prices from 30$ to 60$ and up, they last much longer than 1/72.
I prefer Mobillity and a Good Gun above Heavy Thick Armor. Take The PanzerKampfwagen V ''G'' Panther. It had a very smart sloped armor, the Best Gun known to mankind today ( still capebly of blowing up light tanks today) perfect mobillity and great engines. It Could outshoot, out manouver, out run, and strike beyond any American Tank in the War would ever match!
hey nutn if you remember me at all i know i've been a dick in the past but some of your vids i been watching recently i been enjoying a lot so yeah sorry for being a dick :P
The reason US won the war was because we mass produced our tanks by the MILLIONS. As powerful as the German tanks were, they couldn't produce them fast enough. Not even close. We overwhelmed them.
what about the shermans problem about catching fire, tiger and Königstiger's weightproblems (to much for their maybach engines and their tracks) and the advantege of Russians who used diesel what is an advantage in the extreme cold compaired to normal benzine engines that the germans used.
Is that a King Tiger with the Krupp turret in the beginning? I know the were two different turrents for the King Tiger, one with angular sides, which was the most common, and one with curved sides, almost making it a mushroom turret.
@halo07guy2 The one with the flat fascia plate at the gun mount is the production model designed by Krupp. The one with the rounded fascia plate at the gun mount is the Porsche design which went into only limited production due to the bottom curve of the fascia acting as a shot trap.
Thanks for the nice history lessons nutn! My grandfather was a paratrooper in the 101st airborne B company on DDAy and stayed throughout the entire war. He was there on dday invasion and left after he was in hitler's mansion.
@Dreachon hm i dont think so my facts are that this thing was in op zitadelle and got problems because it was too slow it could destroy a t34 on 3500 meters but with a gasolineuse of 10l per km and a max speed of 15 kmh in an offensive use this thing was in a very bad position
@Dreachon and in kursk it was used as a defensive weapon 13 got destroyed but hey additionally 20 others failed its service because of technical probs and in italy lets have a look oh the tech improved oh no this thing is far to heavy for the roads and bridges get my point now?
In the early phases the sherman was more then capable to take out a panzer 1 to 3 only with the modification of the panzer 4 and the comming of the tiger and panther tank in late 1943 it was outclassed not only that they sent thousands of trucks and halftracks so i do believe it contributed to the war.
But ofcourse most of it was deu to the numbers of the red army,s t-34
t34/85 make in greater numbers and more dependable than the panther. Top armor on those tank was 8mm and artillery along air power could dominate the tanks.
and massive amounts of supplies and vehicles which equipped several nations, although you have to give the Russians as much, if not more, of the credit for the defeat of the Nazis. The war on the Eastern Front was on a different scale from that in the West.
I wouldnt matter if the Germans produced the most reliable cost effective tank, they would still lose.
And the Shermans mobility over soft ground was piss poor btw, narrow tracks and bad ground pressure.
It was also higher than the King tiger.
Only the very late War Shermans were good because of the catastrophe called the US tank destroyer doctrine which looked at tanks as the same way the Germans used Stugs, minus the long 75 mm l43 or 48gun which gave them the long range anti tank capability
100 Stugs or 10 Tigers, the problem is that the Germans did not have the resources( in this case 400 tank crewmen, fuel, factories and materials) to get them on the front but they had enough for 10 Tigers with far better trained crews.
The moment you go for massive training programs (soviets) quality suffers.
As the new crews get killed in combat the demand rises, leading to training cut short even more = death spiral (unless you vastly outnumber the enemy through population, SSSR or USA ).
just to clarify if I may on one of your points.....the penetration numbers IE penetration of armor plate is for vertical plate, so if the armor is sloped at say 45% ,it increases its ability to deflect enemy shots etc....nice info. But I bet you knew that? I didn't hear you say that is all....>:}}
Lol i know i started to watch to see what he thought about mobility/firepower in handguns and i finished watchin all of these cus i wanted to learn more about the tanks in ww2. Great history lesson. Enjoyed it.
Maybe because he bought the miniatures painted and ready from a company like he said in the earlier part? Blame them, not him for that SNAFU. And besides, he´s not claiming to be a tank expert, he´s using them to explain a point when it comes to handheld weaponry.
Now do you want to complain about the way he clips his nails, or can we get on to hearing what he´s trying to explain, or do you want to nitpick about something else?
The Russians did not like their lend lease Shermans at all in their battle on the eastern front and found them to be unreliable and too easy for the Germans to knock out. Maybe they performed better in the sunnier climes of the Southern France and the Italy.
Perhaps the Russians didn't have the right tactics for this type of tank. Allied took advantage of the mobility to outmanouvre the heavier Germans. Russians liked to go directly at the enemy in head-to-head type battles. Also, Russians, or should I say Soviets, were less flexible, due to very authoritarian leadership, who were affraid for their position. They didn't like anyone coming forth with ideas of improved tactics... ;)
Also the Soviets could afford much heavier losses than the Western Allies. Over 80,000 t-34's were made in the war also the t-34 could stand some chance on its own against older German tanks. But it is also true that their leadership was inexperienced and authoritarian.
Ya your a real positive guy,with all your lovely cartoons and i dont respond to ignorant people like you but nutnfancy is a good guy so when you know what your talking about then make a negative statement,dont knock something cause its not your hobby or interest.
I read an online account by a GI about a single Tiger II that held up the advance of an entire division on a road out of Normandy. The crew cleaned-up all comers, the best the Allies could do was take out a track at the cost of several M10's and take out the crippled, but still fighting tiger with a P47 airstrike...All that for 1 tank.
But it fullfilled one of Sun Tzus basic principles: To win without fighting. How? See in Wikipedia for Villers-Bocage. The psychological effect was immense as well as the superiority of german infantry training over the allies training.
The main reason Germany lost was because it was fighting a war on two fronts at the same time, against three powers, one of which could be considered a third unreachable front - America.
It had much less to do with equipment - nearly all of the German equipment was superior. In fact, the Allies obtained advances in technology by capturing scientists and copying the German equipment, including tanks, submarines, missiles, jets, and even firearms.
Fair equipment comparisons must be made based upon on equal numbers.
If you are comparing tanks, for example, then the only fair comparison, would be take an equal number of Tiger and Sherman tanks that could be be produced in a certain time period and cost, and compare them in battle against each other, with an equal supply line.
I have no doubt the Tigers would win. Do you?
When comparing firearms, you must do the same if you want to be fair.
In the example of the Sig and the Beretta in the video, the more fair comparison be to put a person using the Beretta against a person using the Sig, which you did a little in the beginning concerning mobility and convenience.
It certainly would not be fair to compare 5 people armed with Berettas, against 1 person armed with a Sig - even if they required equal cost and production time; which even if they did, you would compare 1 person with 5 Berattas, versus 1 person with 1 Sig.
Not a simply constructed argument. Perhaps even too much supporting evidence. Maybe that's why the view count dropped off, most people don't have the attention span for well constructed arguments....
Great video. You missed an opportunity to talk about systems, though. Wittmann, for example, was probably killed by Allied CAS. Was he out of gas, broken down, or had he suffered a mobility kill from an "inferior" tank? Doesn't matter. The Sherman was a better system as it was perfectly integrated on the operational level of war. You know all that, I think. Just saying.
I don't think it's ever fair to compare the Sherman to a Tiger tank. I mean it's a medium/light tank vs a heavy tank. Of course it's going to lose. That's like comparing an M2 Bradly against a T-90 tank. Shermans should be compared to other medium tanks like the Panzer 4, and T-34 which they fair very well against.
If that's what you got out of it, you've missed the point of the video. It's not about the tanks, it's about mobility versus firepower.
The Tiger was awesome in battle, but slow, unreliable and usually not available. The Sherman was inferior in battle, no question about it, however it was faster, more reliable and more available. It's a sacrifice of firepower to have mobility - better with 2 Shermans for certain than one Tiger if you're lucky.
They all had their pros and cons. Bottom line was the Allies did a better job of understanding this and playing to their strengths while exploiting the weaknesses of the enemy.
Allied air superiority was the real deciding factor in the defeat of German Armor. Our Aircraft wiped out a lot of the Axis armor. Shermans losses were at a 10 to 1 ratio against Tigers so we out made them as you stated. But your point is excellent and on the ground, you are right on! I love WWII armor. Thanks for the vid.
The t34 was far and away the best all around tank of the war. The sherman was decent for infantry support but not for tank battles. The panther was probably the best tank by the end but the t34 when everythings considered was the best of the war.
Sherman was also weak. Even its jumbo firefly fired a soft shot at long range. Also, the Sherman was sloped...cant you see that? The Sherman ran on gasoline, and easy to catch on fire. But Sherman was good at speed (although a Tiger was at 23 MPH under good ground conditions), and it took 5 Shermans to take on a Tiger.
Shermans aren't bad. They are adequate for the roll they were designed to: armored cavalry theory. Actually, combat record of Sherman shows that it is the best cruse tank/medium tank of WW2 AND Korean war, which M4A3s were put against T34/85. Plus, Shermans are well made, even Soviet soldiers love them over T34. Tiger, JS-2, M6 and British infantry tanks were built on different philosophy. That didn't work, so post war MBTs are developed from medium tank of WW2.
Flat out the shermans were not good tanks when the shit hit the fan. Yes they did well enough in the korean war against poorly trained and supported t34 crews but against well trained german tank crews with allied jabos taken out of the equation shermans would get molested everytime. The panther and t34 were much better tanks. Even a pzr 4 or stug was more than a match. All you have to do to prove this is look at tanks after the war ie t-54 which was basically a new t43.
Sigh. Panther was the best all-around, but lets look at the weakspots. Firstly, although its sloping front armor was good, its side armor was 40mm and was easy to penetrate. And Tiger could destroy at 2000 meters and better. And the Tiger had a range of 122 miles, so you need to learn some things. The Stug, although a good tank, was weak. It was easily destroyed.
Drive these tanks in the video game "Red Orchestra", and then you will know what they could do and not do. I drive them every day
The sherman was a terible tank the US should ahve made tanks like the tigers. The Sherman won ebcause of numbers but at the cost of american lives. American lives should be our primary concern in any war, we should not sacrifice them for nothing. Our fighting doctrine should refelct that also.
Actually, Germans need to pump out Tiger I and King Tiger in response to Russian heavy tank development. Germans have hard time dealing with KV-1, and when JS-2 came out in large numbers, the only type of tanks in their inventory can handle these Soviet beasts was Tiger. They were desperate to produce these.
Small sidetrack for people that understand the enormous power of the Königstiger. Yes, more than 400 rolled out of the factory but less than 100 (about 90 or so) actually saw combat. Most never made it to the combat zone because of sabotage, bombings, fuel problems etc. I think all allied commanders would have shivered of the idea of having to confront a force of even 100 Königs on a relatively small front. But good research and knowledge, congrats, and a nice model collection!
Don't forget in WWII the US could mass produce the Sherman so even if it wasn't on par with German tanks the US could produce enough to the allies so the allies had superior numbrs :). Probably does not fit in to this subject but this in the case of tank warfare for WWII is applicable.
The German word Maus has pretty much the same pronunciation as in English mouse. Its the same with house and Haus.
Great idea to use the tank models. That sums it up. You could build five StuG's, four Pz IV's or two Panthers instead of one Tiger.
But even by building smaller tanks, the german industry would never have kept up with the Sovjet and American mass production. 60.000 T34's and 50.000 Shermans!
M4A3 76(W) Sherman Trumpeter ?
Viacheslay 18 hours ago
Late-war the Sherman cost about 50% as much as a Tiger but I think if the Germans has a Tiger for every two Shermans they'd have won hands down.
The key factor is the US economy. The US had the production capacity to produce weapons on such a huge scale that the fighting performance of all the Allied divisions was amplified tremendously. They were fully mechanised when the Germans were still using mules.
korona3103 1 week ago
mmmooorrrrsss the way to say maus its like saying this moors
emochiken99 4 months ago
I'd rather be in a Sherman than a Panzer IV or III (their standard tank of the war), though I would crap my self going against the Tiger series in one.
There were, however, some US Tank Destroyers that freaked the Germans out and gave their heavies a run for their monies such as the M36 with it's turreted 90mm gun and it's little cousin with a 60 mph top speed, m18, and it's 76mm high velocity.
adobo777 5 months ago
The Sherman tank was a good tank but looked puny compared to Tiger and Panther tanks. American tank quality was just not its strong point.
SuperRip7 5 months ago
as the tankers of the time used to say the strategy when meeting hard resistance "Bypass and Haul Ass"
pzshi 6 months ago
the armor triliogy 1 armor 2 firepower 3 mobility and hitler forgot most of it
50TNCSA 7 months ago
Great video. BTW the desert eagle was used to stop drugged up vietcong. It would pretty much instantly kill them because they wouldnt stop by being hit with normal rounds.
FatalParalax 9 months ago
if the sherman is better why was there a Tiger with over 120 destroyed enemy vehicles on his list ? hmm tell me that the tiger was better than those conserves you call "TANK" sorry to say it like that and btw the tiger was the best tank built in WW2 every engenier can tell you that fact he was fast and still powerfull and his armor was better than the armor of King Tiger cause the quality was higher that time it was the best tank in WW2 every guy knows it so dont ignore it just cuz u r from USA
90Flip90 9 months ago
@90Flip90 umm, did you even listen to everything he said? of couse the tiger had better armour and armourment, but it failed in the category of producibility. the allies could afford those 120 plus losses but every tank lost by germany pretty much after normandy was a set back. and how can you possibly say the tiger is faster than the sherman?
bh5496 9 months ago
@bh5496 did i say faster than Sherman ?
90Flip90 8 months ago
i think the Maus actually saw one fight. Where it just sat there like a bunker cause it wasn't able to move because something broke....
Prometheus3052 1 year ago
How much would all of those model tanks cost someone?
1009sandhurst707 1 year ago
@1009sandhurst707 1/72 Dragon Armor like $10-$20 a pop depending on where you buy.
AlcoholicSemenStain 11 months ago
@1009sandhurst707 yeah even Revell 1/72 (which is definetely one of the best brands, btw) maxes out anywhere around 15$ to 25$ WHICH IS A PRETTY (sorry caps lock) good price. even though bigger models can be priced in a large range of prices from 30$ to 60$ and up, they last much longer than 1/72.
hope i could be of assistance.
-the Cheese
SwissCheese707 10 months ago
I prefer Mobillity and a Good Gun above Heavy Thick Armor. Take The PanzerKampfwagen V ''G'' Panther. It had a very smart sloped armor, the Best Gun known to mankind today ( still capebly of blowing up light tanks today) perfect mobillity and great engines. It Could outshoot, out manouver, out run, and strike beyond any American Tank in the War would ever match!
ThePanzerWarMachine 1 year ago
hey nutn if you remember me at all i know i've been a dick in the past but some of your vids i been watching recently i been enjoying a lot so yeah sorry for being a dick :P
ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz 1 year ago 6
@ImEuanAndIGotsSkeelz Hey, that was ice of you, Euan. I'll tell Nutn. --Veri
nutnfancy 1 year ago 5
Howie262 is just another ignorant retarded troll. Just flag all his posts as spam and move on.
Spectre426 1 year ago
I think they lost because the Americans had so many more shermans
cpdp999 1 year ago
I have that King Tiger
cpdp999 1 year ago
P.S. Nutnfancy hates german engineering and equipment. Which is why to this day hes never said anything good about any german piece of technology...
except Glock, thats the only "Germanic" thing ive ever heard him not crytisize.
he doesnt like HnK, he doesnt like Böker, he doesnt like Eikhorn,
shit, he proly drives a toyota or a honda civic.......im geussing.
PS theres no russian or american that would have rather been in a sherman/t34 over a pather or tiger. Garanteed.... good vid ty.
Howie262 1 year ago
@Howie262 is that how you explain that in his top three favorite pistols is the sig,
tac94540 1 year ago
well all are nonsence I would rather go and watch Discovery or History channel than this guy with his philospy
AJAtcho 1 year ago
@AJAtcho good hopefully you can do that and leave us to learn and be entertained, peace out.
tac94540 1 year ago
The reason US won the war was because we mass produced our tanks by the MILLIONS. As powerful as the German tanks were, they couldn't produce them fast enough. Not even close. We overwhelmed them.
adfgfds 1 year ago
@adfgfds the allies, the ALLIES won the war ;D
bh5496 9 months ago
@bh5496
Ok the "Allies" lol
adfgfds 9 months ago
god you must be ripped if you can lift that much steal man :P
cxcljohn 1 year ago
@cxcljohn Those are actually full size tanks too. nutnfancy is HUUUGE
Spectre426 1 year ago 2
what about the shermans problem about catching fire, tiger and Königstiger's weightproblems (to much for their maybach engines and their tracks) and the advantege of Russians who used diesel what is an advantage in the extreme cold compaired to normal benzine engines that the germans used.
dutchforces 1 year ago
Is that a King Tiger with the Krupp turret in the beginning? I know the were two different turrents for the King Tiger, one with angular sides, which was the most common, and one with curved sides, almost making it a mushroom turret.
halo07guy2 1 year ago
@halo07guy2 The one with the flat fascia plate at the gun mount is the production model designed by Krupp. The one with the rounded fascia plate at the gun mount is the Porsche design which went into only limited production due to the bottom curve of the fascia acting as a shot trap.
KEM451 1 year ago
Somehow, the Desert Eagle just seems 2 dimensional.
bubba55l 1 year ago
Hitler was a lot like a kid with adequacy issues channeling the future spirit of Michael Bay.
JohnTraviss 1 year ago
Thanks for the nice history lessons nutn! My grandfather was a paratrooper in the 101st airborne B company on DDAy and stayed throughout the entire war. He was there on dday invasion and left after he was in hitler's mansion.
elitesack 1 year ago
The Ferdinant tank was just like the Maus but was in use and brutally failed
subminuentisch 1 year ago
@subminuentisch
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, I suggest you get a book and read before repeating some stupid soviet propaganda.
Ferdinand performed well in it's intended task at Kursk which was dealing with tanks and after Kursk they caused enourmess losses to sivet armour.
A vehicle with a kill ration of 13:1 is not a failure, read on the history of 653. schwere panzerjager abteilung.
Dreachon 1 year ago
@Dreachon hm i dont think so my facts are that this thing was in op zitadelle and got problems because it was too slow it could destroy a t34 on 3500 meters but with a gasolineuse of 10l per km and a max speed of 15 kmh in an offensive use this thing was in a very bad position
subminuentisch 1 year ago
@Dreachon and in kursk it was used as a defensive weapon 13 got destroyed but hey additionally 20 others failed its service because of technical probs and in italy lets have a look oh the tech improved oh no this thing is far to heavy for the roads and bridges get my point now?
subminuentisch 1 year ago
Hey Nutn, check out the book Death Traps by Belton Cooper. Great read. Lots of first hand insight into the Shermans and armor of the US during WW2.
HollowForm222 1 year ago
sherman=ronson lighters lights every time
survivalkid5108 1 year ago
In the early phases the sherman was more then capable to take out a panzer 1 to 3 only with the modification of the panzer 4 and the comming of the tiger and panther tank in late 1943 it was outclassed not only that they sent thousands of trucks and halftracks so i do believe it contributed to the war.
But ofcourse most of it was deu to the numbers of the red army,s t-34
Raafje84 2 years ago
Well there were thousands of shermans sent to russia during ww2
Raafje84 2 years ago 2
8:00 surpries tank butt secks! Lol
CensoredGoodness 2 years ago
hi people
wobinga7 2 years ago
that white star was begging to be used as a bulls-eye. XDDD
GrenMoyo 2 years ago
t34/85 make in greater numbers and more dependable than the panther. Top armor on those tank was 8mm and artillery along air power could dominate the tanks.
jltuv 2 years ago
but what about what it was meant to counter? the 76? The 85 came after the Panther, and was using lessons learned from battling Panthers.
Maus5000 2 years ago
One Question.... After WW II Is the world a better place , ,
Have you seen a newspaper headline that is good news.... ?
A Mother of a deceased German Veteran asked me that .
88Thyra 2 years ago
vve vvon the ground vvar vvith airplanes and M1s.........
treon123456 2 years ago
and massive amounts of supplies and vehicles which equipped several nations, although you have to give the Russians as much, if not more, of the credit for the defeat of the Nazis. The war on the Eastern Front was on a different scale from that in the West.
nonamebrand0 2 years ago
it vvas the domination of the air that vvon the ground vvar.......those tanks vvere sittin ducks to our planes!
treon123456 2 years ago
I wouldnt matter if the Germans produced the most reliable cost effective tank, they would still lose.
And the Shermans mobility over soft ground was piss poor btw, narrow tracks and bad ground pressure.
It was also higher than the King tiger.
Only the very late War Shermans were good because of the catastrophe called the US tank destroyer doctrine which looked at tanks as the same way the Germans used Stugs, minus the long 75 mm l43 or 48gun which gave them the long range anti tank capability
PanterausfG 2 years ago
100 Stugs or 10 Tigers, the problem is that the Germans did not have the resources( in this case 400 tank crewmen, fuel, factories and materials) to get them on the front but they had enough for 10 Tigers with far better trained crews.
The moment you go for massive training programs (soviets) quality suffers.
As the new crews get killed in combat the demand rises, leading to training cut short even more = death spiral (unless you vastly outnumber the enemy through population, SSSR or USA ).
PanterausfG 2 years ago
just to clarify if I may on one of your points.....the penetration numbers IE penetration of armor plate is for vertical plate, so if the armor is sloped at say 45% ,it increases its ability to deflect enemy shots etc....nice info. But I bet you knew that? I didn't hear you say that is all....>:}}
brokencasket 2 years ago
excellent videos nutnfancy. I know they take a lot of time, effort, and (in many cases) money.
Keep them coming!
- Proud gun owner from Roswell, GA
UBCSWraith 2 years ago
the deagle is more of a handcannon than a handgun
nemisis666eldiablo 2 years ago 2
Dude, seriously. i thought i knew "alot" about WW2 and weapons etc.
but u just astounded me with you're awesome videos, and information about all these tanks/weapons.
Thanks for sharing:).
blackdragon8031 2 years ago 4
Lol i know i started to watch to see what he thought about mobility/firepower in handguns and i finished watchin all of these cus i wanted to learn more about the tanks in ww2. Great history lesson. Enjoyed it.
Orion090 2 years ago
Maybe because he bought the miniatures painted and ready from a company like he said in the earlier part? Blame them, not him for that SNAFU. And besides, he´s not claiming to be a tank expert, he´s using them to explain a point when it comes to handheld weaponry.
Now do you want to complain about the way he clips his nails, or can we get on to hearing what he´s trying to explain, or do you want to nitpick about something else?
BigSwede7403 2 years ago 13
youre a nerd, watch his other videos douchebag, he has more guns and knows about guns more than u will ever do
BF2mods 2 years ago 19
The Russians did not like their lend lease Shermans at all in their battle on the eastern front and found them to be unreliable and too easy for the Germans to knock out. Maybe they performed better in the sunnier climes of the Southern France and the Italy.
cooperjinx 2 years ago
Perhaps the Russians didn't have the right tactics for this type of tank. Allied took advantage of the mobility to outmanouvre the heavier Germans. Russians liked to go directly at the enemy in head-to-head type battles. Also, Russians, or should I say Soviets, were less flexible, due to very authoritarian leadership, who were affraid for their position. They didn't like anyone coming forth with ideas of improved tactics... ;)
TheCrazyFinn 2 years ago 5
Also the Soviets could afford much heavier losses than the Western Allies. Over 80,000 t-34's were made in the war also the t-34 could stand some chance on its own against older German tanks. But it is also true that their leadership was inexperienced and authoritarian.
TheMan6376 2 years ago 2
no one cares here
ilikeloling1 2 years ago
where can u buy those tanks ?
timudema 2 years ago
Ya your a real positive guy,with all your lovely cartoons and i dont respond to ignorant people like you but nutnfancy is a good guy so when you know what your talking about then make a negative statement,dont knock something cause its not your hobby or interest.
theinnovativeone 2 years ago 2
How would the Allies transport thousands of big heavy tanks across the channel to Germany?
They couldnt, and they knew this.
The Allies had the superior doctrine.
Xiolablu3 2 years ago
boats.
ilikeloling1 2 years ago
Yup, they had few very big vehicles, but thats the price you pay when you build complex stuff, you dont have much of it.
HIndsight shows us that many more Shermans, Cromwells and T34's were much more useful than a few big heavy tanks.
Xiolablu3 2 years ago
I read an online account by a GI about a single Tiger II that held up the advance of an entire division on a road out of Normandy. The crew cleaned-up all comers, the best the Allies could do was take out a track at the cost of several M10's and take out the crippled, but still fighting tiger with a P47 airstrike...All that for 1 tank.
OzClawhammer 2 years ago
But still - it WAS destroyed...
Xiolablu3 2 years ago
But it fullfilled one of Sun Tzus basic principles: To win without fighting. How? See in Wikipedia for Villers-Bocage. The psychological effect was immense as well as the superiority of german infantry training over the allies training.
TTiger75 2 years ago
in world war 2 the germans killed much more enemies bur lost for only 1 reason.... there were so many they were fighting.
parkerhentzparker 2 years ago 3
The main reason Germany lost was because it was fighting a war on two fronts at the same time, against three powers, one of which could be considered a third unreachable front - America.
It had much less to do with equipment - nearly all of the German equipment was superior. In fact, the Allies obtained advances in technology by capturing scientists and copying the German equipment, including tanks, submarines, missiles, jets, and even firearms.
Acrinimiril 2 years ago 4
Fair equipment comparisons must be made based upon on equal numbers.
If you are comparing tanks, for example, then the only fair comparison, would be take an equal number of Tiger and Sherman tanks that could be be produced in a certain time period and cost, and compare them in battle against each other, with an equal supply line.
I have no doubt the Tigers would win. Do you?
When comparing firearms, you must do the same if you want to be fair.
Equal numbers and comparisons.
Acrinimiril 2 years ago 2
In the example of the Sig and the Beretta in the video, the more fair comparison be to put a person using the Beretta against a person using the Sig, which you did a little in the beginning concerning mobility and convenience.
It certainly would not be fair to compare 5 people armed with Berettas, against 1 person armed with a Sig - even if they required equal cost and production time; which even if they did, you would compare 1 person with 5 Berattas, versus 1 person with 1 Sig.
Acrinimiril 2 years ago 2
Not a simply constructed argument. Perhaps even too much supporting evidence. Maybe that's why the view count dropped off, most people don't have the attention span for well constructed arguments....
gregvs3 2 years ago 3
A very well considered and researched argument
fuckityfuckyfuckfuck 2 years ago
Awesome arguement, and a creative way to illustrate Mobility Vs. Firepower. Good stuff Nutn'.
45a14 2 years ago 2
Nutnfancy,
Great video. You missed an opportunity to talk about systems, though. Wittmann, for example, was probably killed by Allied CAS. Was he out of gas, broken down, or had he suffered a mobility kill from an "inferior" tank? Doesn't matter. The Sherman was a better system as it was perfectly integrated on the operational level of war. You know all that, I think. Just saying.
nilsderondeau 2 years ago
I don't think it's ever fair to compare the Sherman to a Tiger tank. I mean it's a medium/light tank vs a heavy tank. Of course it's going to lose. That's like comparing an M2 Bradly against a T-90 tank. Shermans should be compared to other medium tanks like the Panzer 4, and T-34 which they fair very well against.
roffelskates 2 years ago
If that's what you got out of it, you've missed the point of the video. It's not about the tanks, it's about mobility versus firepower.
The Tiger was awesome in battle, but slow, unreliable and usually not available. The Sherman was inferior in battle, no question about it, however it was faster, more reliable and more available. It's a sacrifice of firepower to have mobility - better with 2 Shermans for certain than one Tiger if you're lucky.
Tutorp 2 years ago 5
You have tanks, guns, knives, what don't you have that isn't awesome?
roffelskates 2 years ago 2
They all had their pros and cons. Bottom line was the Allies did a better job of understanding this and playing to their strengths while exploiting the weaknesses of the enemy.
baa5000 2 years ago 4
btw. smal detail - the sherman has e redial not a v8. ;-)
vladi420 2 years ago
are these die cast dragon models?
petrwarry 3 years ago 4
great, great series of vids
habsfan51555 3 years ago 5
Allied air superiority was the real deciding factor in the defeat of German Armor. Our Aircraft wiped out a lot of the Axis armor. Shermans losses were at a 10 to 1 ratio against Tigers so we out made them as you stated. But your point is excellent and on the ground, you are right on! I love WWII armor. Thanks for the vid.
sootch00 3 years ago 5
i think the t34 was the best tank of the war mobility fire power simplicity ya get some
Fansler308 3 years ago 3
The t34 was far and away the best all around tank of the war. The sherman was decent for infantry support but not for tank battles. The panther was probably the best tank by the end but the t34 when everythings considered was the best of the war.
Sleeper044 3 years ago
Sherman was also weak. Even its jumbo firefly fired a soft shot at long range. Also, the Sherman was sloped...cant you see that? The Sherman ran on gasoline, and easy to catch on fire. But Sherman was good at speed (although a Tiger was at 23 MPH under good ground conditions), and it took 5 Shermans to take on a Tiger.
calimar28 3 years ago
Shermans aren't bad. They are adequate for the roll they were designed to: armored cavalry theory. Actually, combat record of Sherman shows that it is the best cruse tank/medium tank of WW2 AND Korean war, which M4A3s were put against T34/85. Plus, Shermans are well made, even Soviet soldiers love them over T34. Tiger, JS-2, M6 and British infantry tanks were built on different philosophy. That didn't work, so post war MBTs are developed from medium tank of WW2.
ChaohsiangChen 3 years ago
Flat out the shermans were not good tanks when the shit hit the fan. Yes they did well enough in the korean war against poorly trained and supported t34 crews but against well trained german tank crews with allied jabos taken out of the equation shermans would get molested everytime. The panther and t34 were much better tanks. Even a pzr 4 or stug was more than a match. All you have to do to prove this is look at tanks after the war ie t-54 which was basically a new t43.
Sleeper044 3 years ago
Sigh. Panther was the best all-around, but lets look at the weakspots. Firstly, although its sloping front armor was good, its side armor was 40mm and was easy to penetrate. And Tiger could destroy at 2000 meters and better. And the Tiger had a range of 122 miles, so you need to learn some things. The Stug, although a good tank, was weak. It was easily destroyed.
Drive these tanks in the video game "Red Orchestra", and then you will know what they could do and not do. I drive them every day
calimar28 3 years ago
Lol what kind of dildo says they know anything about a tank because they play a video game? XD
crownroyal111 3 years ago 5
The sherman was a terible tank the US should ahve made tanks like the tigers. The Sherman won ebcause of numbers but at the cost of american lives. American lives should be our primary concern in any war, we should not sacrifice them for nothing. Our fighting doctrine should refelct that also.
WarVideo 3 years ago
Actually, Germans need to pump out Tiger I and King Tiger in response to Russian heavy tank development. Germans have hard time dealing with KV-1, and when JS-2 came out in large numbers, the only type of tanks in their inventory can handle these Soviet beasts was Tiger. They were desperate to produce these.
ChaohsiangChen 3 years ago
LOL good for video games bad for real life! Classic!
TheSargeWP 3 years ago 3
Small sidetrack for people that understand the enormous power of the Königstiger. Yes, more than 400 rolled out of the factory but less than 100 (about 90 or so) actually saw combat. Most never made it to the combat zone because of sabotage, bombings, fuel problems etc. I think all allied commanders would have shivered of the idea of having to confront a force of even 100 Königs on a relatively small front. But good research and knowledge, congrats, and a nice model collection!
FedGuard 3 years ago
Jericho 941 !!! Love it!!! But with the jericho slide..Not uzi or deagle or imi with a Jericho slide yeah
JaySkuh 3 years ago
Don't forget in WWII the US could mass produce the Sherman so even if it wasn't on par with German tanks the US could produce enough to the allies so the allies had superior numbrs :). Probably does not fit in to this subject but this in the case of tank warfare for WWII is applicable.
NovaScotiaNewfie 3 years ago
Ya know, this video sort of reinforced a belief I've had about Hitler for a long time. That is, that he suffered from what I call Chihuahua Syndrome.
CanItAlready 3 years ago
By the end of 1945, over 57,000 T-34s had been built
sargon08 3 years ago
The German word Maus has pretty much the same pronunciation as in English mouse. Its the same with house and Haus.
Great idea to use the tank models. That sums it up. You could build five StuG's, four Pz IV's or two Panthers instead of one Tiger.
But even by building smaller tanks, the german industry would never have kept up with the Sovjet and American mass production. 60.000 T34's and 50.000 Shermans!
marodeur64 3 years ago
lol , the desert eagle ! good to see it mentioned as a hollywood gun! debunk the deagle!
powderkid 3 years ago 4
awesome series, didn't know much about the tanks of ww2, so i got a 2for1 in this series.
Rmx861 3 years ago
why pay 10,000 pieces of silver for a sword when you can get 100 Spears for 100 pieces of silver each.
ZenMacha 3 years ago 2
I was an M-60 A1 crewman
chrisw40 3 years ago
the tanks were only one facit of the war.you tube has hundreds of videos on the tiger tank.
mrbeligos 3 years ago
wow u take a long time to type up the info part lol
aznfatty777 3 years ago
Ive got that gun book youve got
LIGHTNINGLEVIS 3 years ago 2
me 2
makehalo3forge 3 years ago
Being there helps a great deal. Thanks
Rasenkrieger 3 years ago
The toy tank was brilliant. Haha. I love these philosophy and skill videos.
Thx NutN
DeliriumSC 3 years ago 3