Sherman tank - 'Ron'

[USAYTRB]

this is actually a sherman firefly that's a 17 pounder gun mounted on the turret

[Huzzah89]

Thats not a firefly, thats an american m10 fitted with a 17 pounder.

[blownglasslide]

It's an M4A3E8 Sherman. This version had the improved 76mm M1 gun, an HVSS suspension system, and better armor than previous versions of the tank.

[Huzzah89]

Ahhh I see, Its not always easy to tell the upgunned shermans from the 17 pounders. :) I think the 17lb is only slightly longer.

[blownglasslide]

Yeah, it is. Also, the T-23 turret they invented for the new gun looks like an M10 turret. They way you can tell is that the Sherman has a hull that slopes down towards the back of the tank, while the M10 and other US TDs have a straight deck.

[Huzzah89]

Ah kool. Yeah the turret is what tricked me, looks exactly like an m10.

[lyden2006]

Wow.. =)

[DET832]

Good video of this Sherman running.

[DeathWishMonkey]

"Yes, exagerated tale was by an English based documentary, no interest in exagerating german prowess against themselves. The Sherman was all the allies had for its "heavy tank". 6 shermans went down for each Tiger. The Germans even had a "Super Tiger" that was in the field of war before end. Talk to any still living Allied tanker from WWII and ask him about "Tiger fear." "

Yawn. They lost. With more dead men than the allies.

[duhimblake]

yawn, the number was more like 11 to 13 shermans to tigers. the sherman won because it was easy to maintain, mas producabale, and looked sweet:)

[DeathWishMonkey]

Actually, the Sherman was equal or slightly better than the Panzer Mark IV and superior to the Stug III/IV, the two most numerous tank types in the Wehrmacht.

Actually, all that it took to kill a Tiger was one 75mm shell to the flank, at five hundred yards.

Actually, Tigers composed less than five per cent of total German tank strength at WWII.

Double yawn. Yet another rude, self-styled internet loser.

[wartmcbeighn]

Sherman versus early Pz 4's sure, it had a short barrel 75, but at the time when the Sherman was just ebtering full scale production, it had the 75L30, and the Pz4 had the 75L43, which could shoot further than the Sherman's gun which could only really go through armour inside of 500m, and even then, thin armour whereas the 75L43 could engagge and go through armour at at over 750 meters. Same thing for Stug's. Sherman won because it looked sweet....as a target maybe, but that doesnt make a winner

[DeathWishMonkey]

Actually, the Sherman was equal or slightly better than the Panzer Mark IV and superior to the Stug III/IV, the two most numerous AFV types in the Wehrmacht.

Actually, all that it took to kill a Tiger was one 75mm shell to the flank, at five hundred yards.

Actually, Tigers composed less than five per cent of total German tank strength at WWII.

Double yawn. Yet another rude, self-styled internet loser.

[duhimblake]

u cant be seroious, it took at least 3 shells at closer range, a AP shell followd by HE shells

[DeathWishMonkey]

Seriously. Those things aren't collections of pixels with hit points. It's a wall of steel enchasing crew and machine. A tank could take dozens or one shot to burn depending on where it was hit.

A 85mm or 76mm gun could kill a Tiger with frontal shtos out to 800 meters. 17 pounders practically negates the Tiger's range advantage. Either way I contest the claim that 10 Shermans are needed to kill a Tiger.

[DeathWishMonkey]

The 75mm Sherman was the only tank Allied fielded, by no means! Other tank and tank destroyers the allies fieled in ETO include Sherman Firefly with 17 pndr, 76mm Sherman, Churchill and TDs M10, M18 and M36. All of the TDs are armed with 3in./76mm gun or better.

The most numerous German AFV in ETO was StG III/IV. The most numerous panzer was Mark IV. Panthers were almost as numerous but not quite.

Tigers were as rare as hen's teeth.

[duhimblake]

a king tiger was as rare as my moms ass in vegas (she hates gambaling)

[duhimblake]

no way a 76mm could KO a tiger with frontal armour

[blownglasslide]

The one on this tank was an uprated version. At close ranges (500 yds) it could penetrate a Tiger 1's frontal armor.

[CB65810]

I don't want to dampen the debate here, but please remember that each of these tanks - german and american- carried a crew. Please show a some consideration, in your comments for those crew who perished in their tanks...like my dad's older brother, a Sherman driver in Company A , of the 712th Tank Battalion. Artillery barrage, Ardennes, January 1945

[warmoviesboy]

i think sherman is the uglyisht looking tank ever

[CB65810]

you should see some of the earlier Russian heavy tanks...looked like legos

[Vaylen104]

Hey The T-series tanks were the best tanks of the war, powerful and fast.,

[greatgambino]

Irregardless, the Panzer IV was outdated just as the ME 109 although it was in the air till the end of the war. The ME 262 and the Komet were by far, superior to anything the allies had to offer. German production plants were bombed flat again and again. Had they been allowed to have full production of the existing technologies they had developed at the time, there would be no comparision to german and allied military technology.

[revolrz22]

But they WERE bombed, so your argument is invalid. In any case, the Allies had their own designs that could have been ushered into production on a whim if the situation required it.

[greatgambino]

In tank to tank warfare, it took at least 6 shermans to bring a tiger down. And the losses the shermans experienced were even higher than that. The Germans lost all control of the air, and most if not all, of the tigers taken out were by air. Your ratio does not reflect that. Comparing the sherman to outdated early german tanks is not accurate. The sherman sucked right off the first production line. The equivalent of 50 caliber armor piercing bullets could riddle it like swiss cheese.

[revolrz22]

The often quoted figures (6 to 1, 10 to 1, 5 to 1, etc) factor all Shermans disabled by way of land mines, air attack, field guns, tanks, infantry anti-tank, etc etc. I will state again; the Western Allies only lost 1.6 tanks for every 1 German tank in tank to tank combat during Normandy. Not bad considering that the Germans were on the defensive. As for your comment about outdated German tanks: The Panzer IVH was the mainstay of the Panzerwaffe. Not the Tiger.

[duhimblake]

no, in the early days of ww2 the tiger, and panther did not exist, and the sherman coiuld tackle everything the axis powers had to offer.

[greatgambino]

Yes, exagerated tale was by an English based documentary, no interest in exagerating german prowess against themselves. The Sherman was all the allies had for its "heavy tank". 6 shermans went down for each Tiger. The Germans even had a "Super Tiger" that was in the field of war before end. Talk to any still living Allied tanker from WWII and ask him about "Tiger fear."

[revolrz22]

The Sherman was not a heavy tank nor was it fielded as one. However, it did outclass the Panzer III and Panzer IV. Through extensive upgrades it was far from helpless against the Panzers V and VI. The statement that 6 Shermans went down for every Tiger is an out of context statistic. In reality, the Allies lost only an average of 1.6 tanks for every German tank in straight tank to tank combat in the Normandy campaign.

[greatgambino]

Wasnt fielded as one? whaaaat? It was put up against the tiger, it was all the allies had. You are talking out of your butt! You need to watch The American Sherman vs. The German Tiger Tank, a Discovery Channel documentary about pitting the sherman against the tiger, or watch Witman wipe out a whole column of allied heavy to medium armor with one tiger. You do not know what you are talking about!

[revolrz22]

Yeah, and the Panzer I was put up against the Char B1 Bis. Does that make it a valid comparison? Not really. The Sherman was not all the Allies had - stop kidding yourself. The "Sherman vs. Tiger" episode of greatest military clashes, the documentary you are referring to, is terrible. The guy makes a mistake in almost every other sentence he makes. I know; I have gone through and dissected it citing source material all the way through on several respectable forums.

[greatgambino]

Anyone who has any doubts as to the inferiority of the Sherman to german armor just has to watch any of the other videos on utube such as Sherman tank vs German Tank or even better, Wittman in Villers Bocage, one german tank takes on a whole allied columng and wipes out over 100 pieces of armor. You are a technical nitwit.

[revolrz22]

Well, sir - I'm not about to go about championing the exaggerated tales of an ace crew as a measurement of performance of the average German tank. Especially considering you're talking about a Heavy breakthrough vehicle vs. a Medium. If you do a modicum of research you'll find that the Sherman is more capable than you're giving it credit for. Especialy the Easy Eight as shown in this video.

[greatgambino]

sloping armor? More like sloping po tmetal.Yes, kids and you should also know that all sherman tanks came with mirrors on all sun visors for powdering your nose in between skirmishes!

[revolrz22]

Pot metal? I wouldn't call 64mm sloped steel pot metal considering it was more ballistic resistant than its German opponent; the Panzer IVH who had 80mm with no slope. The whole "powdering your nose" bit is cute, but crew comfort is indeed very important since they're expected to stay crammed in there 24/7.

[revolrz22]

This is why you should stay in school kids. Regardless of what this guy says, this particular version of the M4 Medium sported 64mm sloped RHA steel armor, had a 76.2mm gun which was comparable to the most common vehicle armaments in the German arsenal, and a wet storage system to protect the crew from ammunition explosion. As with all Sherman variants this tank also featured a roomy comfortable interior and a gun gyro stabilizer which no other nation possessed at the time.

[watchthink]

nice suspension

[yellowtommytanker]

This sherman actually has 2 name plates, "RON" and "HARRY", it is named after Ron Huggins and Harry "Anklets" Webb, two museum volunteers and World War 2 veterans who up until a few years ago crewed this vehicle at all museum mobility events until ill health forced both of them to retire from driving.

[killtron]

Thanks for the info

[Mcplkelly]

Yeah, 76mm or 3". A sherman with the gun mounted on a M10 TD. Really, not the greatest tank in 1944, but the US finally got a good design of the sherman, superior in every way to the contemporary Panzer 4 series, which still made up the bulk of the German Army. Better armor (for once), gun on par with 75mm, and better optics.

[killtron]

Thank for the info

[JoelHarley1]

This tank is actually a M4A2 76mm (or Sherman IIIAY to the British)

[killtron]

Thanx for the info

[ctlmb]

panzerwolf - you know your tanks. I'm showing the kids this video since they're interested about learning about all the tanks in Company of Heroes. 17-pound gun was definitely a worthy improvement.

[mewlewis]

nice design

[B2091]

Love the sound of those Shermans, have done many a battle next those things.

Im right in thinking this is Bovington tank museum, if so I think that particular sherman is marked for Brit use, with the desert rats insignia.

[panzerwolf494]

Actually, it looks like the Firefly version of the Sherman. It came in later in the war, had a beefed up gun to duke it out better with some of the Panthers and Tigers it'd run into, plus extra space for radio and ammunition. I'm not sure, but if a Sherman would have been in North Africa it would have the rounded peak (early versio Shermans) on the hull instead of the sharp angle (late version Shermans).

[killtron]

Your 100% correct