Sherman tank M4A1 driving lesson

[aaronnaam]

cooooooooool

[stas19689889]

америка гавно...

[pravdadn]

зашмалить бы в него с т-90

[nobetterplacetolive]

THX , Great , Anna

[MBguy2008]

Another thing to keep in mind is US tankers often referred to any German tank as a Tiger. Look at a Pzkw IV with the armoured skirts on the sides, including the turret. That could very easily be mistaken for a Tiger. The best thing for the Allies was that only some 1,450 Tigers were built, with about 400-500 in service along 3 fronts at most.

[nejkolo]

m4a1 105 mm :D

[harentrois]

M4A1 don't have a 105mm. 75 or76mm.

[nejkolo]

yes... my mistake ... xD

[bonnieboy53]

@harentrois sorry but m4a1 can be equiped with a 105 mm

normal is 75/76 mm

but 105 is a howitzer cannon.

[darkhound891]

@harentrois 75.6mm to be exact lol

[dearhboy]

@harentrois i'm pretty sure they did have some, though it wasn't common.

[Tyco200]

@harentrois According to the turret of the T-23, you've got a 76.

[krisppy022]

probably a driving teacher

[harentrois]

You are right, there is no other solution to teach to drive a tank than taking place above the hull. You must cry the orders to the driver, because the noise of the engine is very loud. I teach to drive Leopard tanks in the same position. At the tank school, they have special tanks to teach driving. We don't have it!

[ikalimnos]

@harentrois Wel I used to train drivers also in Leopard 1 tanks and we have just used the intercom... no need to sought

[harentrois]

@ikalimnos You're right, but our Leopard is a tank from the Brussel's Army Museum and so, not from a tank regiment. That's for this reason that we don't have all the communication system and we must find other solutions for communicate.

[ikalimnos]

@harentrois Sorry didn't know that, I just loved to tell the driver "master, filters, preheat, pull the pedal back and fire it up!" , " lever at D, speed at 4 and don't forget to unlock the stearing!" great years, I sure miss them a lot...

[spartusabductus]

You can also get WW2 and modern tank driving lessons at bovington tank museum....

[panzerrat]

I'll grant you that the Sherman had quite a few issues, including combustability, thinner armor, gasoline engine...  But it's always nice to know that you're backed up by 87,999 others just like it!

[MokomaSusi]

German tanks had gasoline engine too.

[Treetopflyer172]

The Sherman tank was far inferior to the German designs. It was a sad product of having to mass produce lots of equipment for the war in Europe quickly. My cousin was killed in North Africa in a Sherman. Not nearly enough armor to protect the crew from a direct hit, and not enough punch to kill the German tanks.

The Pershing was the first decent tank we had, and as a correction to jers59, the israelis were using mostly Patton tanks and still took heavy casualties from anti tank weapons.

[BlueCloneTrooper521]

yes, and when they mass produced it, it was another thing to boost our econemy s shut it

[TheSaturnV]

Yes and no. In terms of armor and armament, yes. In terms of automotive reliability, no. The Sherman was far superior to German tanks in this regard. Truthfully, the Sherman was on par with the most common PanzerIV, and at a disadvantage to the Panther MkV and Tiger MkVI.

[panzerknacker1000]

lmao....u have no idea kiddy...the us.army calculate 25-30 shermans for 1 tiger ...and u say 1 sherman is par with that unique tank?are u serious?dont think so!so dont blame urself with stupid posts of things u dont know!

[HayateAce]

Obviously your reading comprehension is not very good. I am sorry for u.

:(

[Daviddabest05]

nahh your wrong my friend, the US army stated in tons and tons of research that it took 4-7 Shermans for 1 Tiger depending on the Location and time of combat in other words. if a entire Sherman platoon (like I said 4-5 shermans mostly )was on the other side or on a road across from a tiger most of the Shermans will most likely get destroyed by the monster named the Tiger tank the sherman that survives is always the one that flanks em and blows the Tiger fuel tank in the back in 15 - a million a

[revolrz22]

@Daviddabest05

Tons and tons of research?

The story changes depending on who tells the story. I've heard everything from 4 to 25 to one. In any case, these ratios are made by dividing the number of Shermans lost to the number of Tigers lost. Unfortunately, in the case of Shermans, the overwhelming majority of losses came from land mines. Not enemy tanks.

[Daviddabest05]

@revolrz22 when I said "tons and tons of Research", I meant that the allied commanders noticed that it would take alot of Shermans for 1 Tiger. Sadly Sherman tank commanders said that they would rather a Tiger than a tin can named a Sherman. Also Amazingly a Sherman would totally outrun a tiger due to the Shermans Mechanical reliability and Factory workers messing with the Tigers engine caused alot of breakdowns which should

[Daviddabest05]

@revolrz22 have been easy targets for Shermans but sometimes the Tigers take em out before a breakdown happens

[revolrz22]

@Daviddabest05

Again, the statistic is made by dividing the total losses of all Shermans against the total losses of all tigers. This is a terrible method of determining tank effectiveness, since for example landmines were a by far bigger killer of Shermans than Tigers were.

German Infantry caused almost as many Sherman losses as their tanks did, never mind artillery losses.

[revolrz22]

@Daviddabest05

So, no, you haven't done 'tons and tons of research.' You watched an hour of the History Channel and think you know everything.

[MBguy2008]

@Daviddabest05

US tank platoons were usually 5 tanks and the British often had 4. I read in one book when the 76mm gun was in greater use, some US tank platoons preferred to keep one 75mm armed Sherman. Apparently there was only a smoke round for the 75 and not the 76. The 75 armed Sherman would fire at the Tiger or Panther and the smoke would blind the enemy tank. The other US tanks would try to get in a shot in the enemy's side or rear.

[Daviddabest05]

sherman destoys the Armor in the front but your right a Sherman is never up to par with a tiger

[jers59]

67-73 wars The Israelis still had plenty of Shermans in front line and reserve units along with M48, Centurions and latter M60,s Battle of Valley of Tears involved centurions and Shermans they totally destroyed the syrian armor despite being outnumbered around 300 to 64

[theking497]

this sherman m4a1 has the 76mm m1a1 gun with the t23 style turret

[jers59]

Sherman tanks were destroying modern soviet MBT T54/55 and T62 in the 67 and 73 war While at the same time the only panther and tiger tanks left were in museums

[darthbandon10]

Israelis had their own designs by then, and some M47\48\60s. Their main problem when fighting the Sinai campaign was massed anti-tank missile fire.

[BlueCloneTrooper521]

This is a British "Firefly" Sherman tank, you can tell by the larger [than 75 or 76mm] cannon, and the turrut design is different, because it needed to be enlarged for bigger gun.

[entropy11]

wrong. that's a M4A1(76)W with the T23 turret. Fireflies used the older turret.

[BlueCloneTrooper521]

thanks for the correction , i noticed that the turret is the newer one its shaped with the armour not so much sloped.

[StarskySTARS]

The allied Airforce took care of more german tanks than any Sherman did, or the US air force alone took out more tanks.

[youngsinfo]

nice where you get it?

[harentrois]

Driving lesson on the Sherman tank M4A1 "Combat Camel" of the Brussels' Royal Army Museum in Belgium (Europe)

[Supergungun]

I dunno why people hate the Sherman so much, the Bradley has the same chassis and it's about as reliable.

[drifterZ00]

sherman tank = one of the crappiest tank in WWII history.

just admit it yanks, its reality... you had better tanks nowadays, it wouldn't hurt if you'll accept history a bit.

[Killjoyiiiii]

Allow me to explain why the original Sherman design was somewhat flawed.

1. They had to be inexpensive, small and light. Transported thousands of miles across the ocean! They also drove thousands of miles across land once they had crossed the ocean!

2. United States was not in a war-time stance at the outbreak of ww2, so they were forced to go with thier best tank design at the time.

3. U.S. tank doctrine was for INFANTRY SUPPORT ONLY. Not to engage other tanks!

[JoshA1977]

Plus us "Yanks" with our Sherman tanks (the crappiest tank in WWII history" helped to keep Hitler's Third Reich from setting foot on English soil.

[blownglasslide]

The Sherman had great acceleration, reliability, ease of maintanence, and range. Had the Army had the foresight to equip it with better armor and a better gun before it entered service, it probably would have gone down as one of the best tanks in the war. As it sits, the Sherman actually faired very well against the main German tank of the war, the Panzer IV. It also kicked royal ass in the Pacific, but no one ever seems to remember that.

[drifterZ00]

yep, japanese crap tanks who were only good at killing M3's were no match, i know.

[drifterZ00]

well... T-34 was the better tank

[AdognamedOp]

T-34 was based on an American design.

[drifterZ00]

i don't agree, sherman's armor was not sloped at all. it was the americans on the other hand followed T-34's design on their M-10 Wolverines. sherman tank didn't have a sloped hull or armor, sorry i disagree!

[No1118117]

Sloped armour doesn't necessarily mean thick armour. Even in its basic form, the M4 had thicker armour than the M10. Thin, sloped armour also has several downsides that people tend to not know about such as armour overmatching.

[No1118117]

T34 used an American suspension design (Christie) but thats it. Several British tanks used it as well.

[AdognamedOp]

The Christie design played a huge role in Soviet armour development. The T-34 and it's variants made all the difference in that war. Without the design they would've had to rely on the WWI French Renault design.

[No1118117]

Yes, but saying that the T34 is based on an American design is deceptive as it was only the suspension that they used, as opposed to just copying an entire tank.

[AdognamedOp]

The T-34 design was based on the BT series which was based on the Christie prototype. The Soviets didn't copy an entire tank they took simply the design a step further.

[Ratti666]

Even this time french cars are crap :-)

Lucky they had this design or we all would speak german now lolz..

Hmm we all speak english now, so actualy US invaded Europe :D (im from europ fyi)

[CentCom2C]

Jea! American design! One turret, gun, 2 tracks and one hull! Russians copy everything!

[renaud1160]

haaa que il est beau mon gamin :D

[theforbiddenchaos]

sherman is the ugliest shit i have ever seen( i don't use the word tank) king tiger has the most beautiful look and the best gun, armour.

[wwmb43]

king tiger war a bunker whit tracks not a tank

too eawy too slow

underpowered

too mechanical defect

whit a glass final drive(most werte immobilized

when in combat the pilot steer whit all the power destroyng the final drive)

it was a giant whit butter feet

[miniz33]

I pray that someday a person can post a video of anything mechanical and not have it turn into a fanboy pissing contest...

[FutureMarine246]

@miniz33 does a mechanical pencil count?

[miniz33]

@FutureMarine246 No, because itll be bic vs sharpwriter

[LeonDasr]

thats what i call technology XD

[Videolover101]

is that a WW2 tank? if it is it looks really cool and wierd at the same time.

[crazyinsanepanda101]

yes it was the primary tank used by the allies in ww2 and was quite inferior to the german tiger tanks. however, there were far more shermans built than german tiger tanks in the war.

[chopperhead2011]

Well we (America) were also allied with Russia, who just so happened to have the T34 Tiger Tamer, which is far superior to the German Tigers.

[Mcplkelly]

It was a good match for most tanks it faced actually. It was a medium tank, when fighting heavies it did bad just like German mediums did bad against allied Heavies.

Main thing was it was a match for most of the tanks it was bound to encounter, for those it could not fight one on one, there were so many made the could overwhelm them with numbers. In the strategic sense, the huge armies of Shermans allowed for the Allies to dictate where and when to fight, the Germans lost the initiative.

[WhiteFoxProd]

russia sucks

[flashpoint2000]

The Russians won the war! T34 and the cold winters... We (britian) we falling very short.. so were the USA, what about the others? free french? canadian? india? polish?

[1PAcouchpotato]

russians won shit

[tx942cg]

The war was won by Russia AND the US. England played her part in North Africa very well. After that her part was there.....but one that was not war winning.....but she was an important staging place for Overlord.

[tx942cg]

allow me to edit this. England played its major role in the war by A.RAF kicks the shit outta the luftwaffe and keeps its hold on the isle which we NEEDED to invade france. B.England did the majority of the fighting in North Africa. After that TO she was more of a supporting element to the americans.

[crazyinsanepanda101]

just what i was going to say we (U.S. and England) needed that island to stage and invasion of europe which thus forced germany to fight on 2 fronts. If d-day never occured germany could have focused on fighting just the russians and may very well have won the war.

[Mcplkelly]

Or just as bad, Russia won then forced communism on the whole of Europe rather then just their half.

I tremble to think how the cold war would have worked out had the Russians "Liberated" all of Europe, NATO would have been awfully small.

[chopperhead2011]

Who cares what would've happened? America kicked ass and used our brilliant strategery to USE the USSR to force the Nazis to fight a 2-front war, only to shortly after backstab the Commies!

But now we're all friends so let's just hug and forget that ever happened, and focus on "containing" the damn towelheads.

[mindcontroller666]

yep definitly

[honeycake69]

fucking nazi nigger racist :)

[1PAcouchpotato]

....but...did you just call me then call me a nigger?....what the Hell?

[honeycake69]

i dunno

this is MADNESS

[BillieGuitar91]

LOL

[Dazhimself]

ahhhhhh i want to buy one lol

[michelekingtiger]

ofcourse we had problems, we started makin spitfires out of pots and pans LOL no jks

all im sayin is that i dont like it when americans say that they won the which they missed a huge part of!

its like if yu see the last 5min of a football game and then tell every1 that yur team won xDD

[bjamin08]

It may seem like that yes, but without each other the war couldn't have been won. So I do think it is safe to say that we (when I say we, I mean the entire allied forces at the time, including the British.) won. You may be specifically thinking about the europe theater, when the pacific theater was almost entirely our undertaking. We (Americans) do not intend to be cocky and take all the credit, when we say we, we mean the entire allied forces...

[Ceilingductofevil]

Exactly!

[wartmcbeighn]

michele, i agree with you there...hear a lot of americans saying that they won WW1, WW2, and Korea despite the fact there were many other nations involved...and the statement that there equipment was the best, which it wasn't

[michelekingtiger]

why do all americans so that they won the war? YOU WERE LATE! we were fightin the germans for over 3years b4 u showed up!

[bjamin08]

And you still would have been fighting them if we didn't show up. We did win the war. Late?  It wasn't our war until we realized that you all couldn't win.

[michelekingtiger]

ofcourse we had problems, we started makin spitfires out of pots and pans LOL no jks

all im sayin is that i dont like it when americans say that they won the which they missed a huge part of!

its like if yu see the last 5min of a football game and then tell every1 that yur team won xDD

[michelekingtiger]

ofcourse we had problems, we started makin spitfires out of pots and pans LOL no jks

all im sayin is that i dont like it when americans say that they won the which they missed a huge part of!

its like if yu see the last 5min of a football game and then tell every1 that yur team won xDD

[michelekingtiger]

ofcourse we had problems, we started makin spitfires out of pots and pans LOL no jks

all im sayin is that i dont like it when americans say that they won the which they missed a huge part of!

its like if yu see the last 5min of a football game and then tell every1 that yur team won xDD

[ilovemeagan]

Everyone here is correct in some way or another. But truly the Sherman M4 wasnt designed to engage enemy tanks. Thats why the American had the M10 Wolverine, the M18 HellCat and the M26 Persching.

[wartmcbeighn]

M-10 and M-18 were desigened to shoot and scoot..didnt have the armour to stay around, god help them if the shell bounced. the Brits upgunned the M-10 with the 17pdr, which was a very good thing, since the M-10s gun was ineffective by 1943, coupled with a slow traverse turret, a few big problems. Overall, teh 2 Ts's with their open tops and slow turrets were an ok stop-gap measure. The Pershing..doesnt even factor into anything, barely saw any real combat. And I lovemeagen..who's this "we"??????

[ilovemeagan]

We???? I never said we?

[wartmcbeighn]

ilovemegan, you must not be able to read what you said.."Sherman's are one of the main reasons we won the war". Who are you referring to when you say "we"????

[ilovemeagan]

Ahh my apology for being American hence "we" meaning all americans,brits aussies and so forth reading this.

[Brian79camino]

This tank was total garbage, the gun was shit and the armor was shit, the only good thing it had goin for it was that it didn't break down. The only good Sherman was the Firefly that the Brits cam out with, with the long barrel 76mm gun

[revolrz22]

The gun was good for when it was released and the armor was superior of that of its rival, the Panzer IV. The Sherman later went through several upgrades, from the ad-hoc Firefly upgrade you mentioned to an all-out American redesign featuring thicker armor, a new turret, and a more capable gun as well as more crew safety features.

Please do some research before you spread misinformation around. The Allies were an effective fighting force in WWII regardless of what 'pop' history says.

[Detoyato]

If the US army wanted to destroy a tank with the Sherman they would have equipt it with the formidable 57mm 6pounder gun which has superb anti tank capabilities. The 57mm could penetrate the Tiger tanks frontal armor at 960m with the APDS round and at 490m with the APC/APCBC rounds.

[drnco]

A 56" would not penetrate a tiger from the front unless u had supercharged shells

[xxEverydayxxIdiotxx]

True the APDS could have penetrated the armor, but it came to late in the war to make a difference. That is why 75mm was the main battle cannon for the Sherman, and there was also the Sherman 76mm. Also, if a Sherman tank was 490m away from a tiger, it would be dead.

[Detoyato]

the APDS rounds came in at late 1943 but a similarly powerfull round named the littlejohn was introduced earlier I think. Anyways the best tank that could be mached up to the Tiger or even the King Tiger tanks is the

Churcchill Black Prince. While the Churchill series tank from Mark III to the Churchill crocodile was respectable as a hewavy infantry tank, the Black Prince Version was armed with the superb 76mm 17 pounder gun and up to 200mm of armor. But it came to late in the war.

[SidiousX]

lol are you retarded? Think you mean the 76mm...which still had trouble penetrating the frontal armor of the tiger

[Detoyato]

You clearly dont know the power of the 17 Pdr. It's Maximum penetration at 2 km using the APDS Round is 113mm at 30 degrees, the Tigers maximum armor is 110mm at O degrees.

[duhimblake]

dude, the 75mm was bigger than the 57mm, but the sherman could, in the earlier days of the war, tackle everything the axis could throw at it, but it never was intended as a tank killer, the m-10 had that job, the sherman was an infantry support tank.

[revolrz22]

I like the way you think Detoyato, but I think you need to think a little bigger.

One of the big design constraints of the M4 was that it *had* to have a gun of at least 75mm caliber in a turret. If they wanted a tank-killer, there was another weapon available that would have been a more ideal choice than the 57mm M1; the 3-inch M7. Of course, that would require a new turret to keep with U.S. standards but that's what happened anyway by 1944.

[wartmcbeighn]

The only reason teh Sherman didnt get the M& until the developemnt ofthe M4E8 was becasue the department that oversaw production of tank destroyers would not part with it until pressure from teh dept. of defence. I nthe earlier days, the Sherman didnt see much action against other tanks, and somehow i doubt a Sherman could shrug off a 88MM round. Trus, sherman was an infantry support tank. The Firefly, with 17pdr was teh best verion, offered to the US army..turned down.

[revolrz22]

The Sherman never got the 3-inch M7. It got the 76.2mm M1 line of guns. I also find it funny that you consider any tank which couldn't take an 88mm shell readily an infantry support tank. What, then, would you say about the M18 Hellcat Tank Destroyer? That couldn't take an 88mm. Was that, then, an infantry support tank? Or how about the Churchill VII? That could easily absorb an 88mm shell, but it WAS an Infantry Support tank. Your logic is faulty.

[wartmcbeighn]

the sherman started out as an infantry support tank until it got the 76.2 for the E8. Overall, the Sherman did not achieve its potential to engage other tanks until it was equipted until the 76.2 or the 17pdr were implemented. In terms of capability, the Pz4F2 was much better suited for engaging tanks than the Sherman.

[revolrz22]

The Sherman received up gunning before the updated suspension. Please mind your research. The F2 was only more suited to engaging tanks than the Sherman if you go our of your way to ignore its faults. Although the KwK 40 gun was lethal to the Sherman, the 75mm M3 was still lethal to the Panzer IV all the same.

[wartmcbeighn]

only problem with that argument is that 75mm gun the Sherman had could not fire as far, whereas the KwK 40 could shoot farther and still penetrate the armour at a range where the Sherman could not fire

[revolrz22]

That's not true at all. both weapons' gunnery sights had markings for over 2,000 yards, and each weapon could fire well further than that. Both the 75mm M3 and the KwK 40 could fire many times over what the typical engagement range was.

[wartmcbeighn]

Not talking about how far they could shoot, talking about effectivness of the shell hitting at long range, the L43 being able to penetrate the armour of a sherman outside the shell penetrating range of the shermans 75mm gun by quite a bit

[revolrz22]

Well, alright - in that case you are simply incorrect because the Panzer IVs armor was vulnerable to the 75mm M3 at roughly the same distance that the M4 was to the KwK 40. This gap shifted back and forth as both tanks took on armor upgrades, but by 1944 the average sherman was hauling a 64mm sloped glacis. that gave over 100mm of ballistic resistance vs. 75mm diameter shells. Whats more, the PIV chasis was weighed down and the suspension almost disabled by the front weight of its glacis.

[Sundual22]

the tank that you just seen sent the germans all the fuckin way back to germany !

[tonjes21]

no it did not! the airforce destroyed all of them!

[Demmler565]

yea, and the germans were totally outnumbered

[MP5maniac8U]

sherman tanks are VERY EFFECTIVE against the japanease back in WW2

[IdidURmom2]

its loud as hell

[martintheman72105]

gee shermans are tall

compared to a tiger

[revolrz22]

Shermans were not a mistake. They were what the Allies needed. They needed a tank that maintained rough parity with the workhorse German vehicle (The Panzer IV) and was available in numbers. In fact, in many respects, the Sherman outclassed the Panzer IV. The failure of the American Army in WWII was no breakthrough tank comparable to the British Infantry tanks or the German/Soviet heavies.

[NotreDamepwns]

Sherman's were a mistake, their guns were to small. They COULD NOT stand up against a tiger. Just like anything though it was a British invention which proved again to be to small.

[Psyware]

It's quantity , not quality that won

[Skullstorm17]

There's no comparison between the Sherman and the Tiger. The Sherman is a medium tank and the Tiger is a heavy tank, that tells you right off the bat these are two different tanks for two different roles. Also,the came AFTER the Sherman entered service, the US didn't even know it even existed. Also the the Tiger was designed along with the Panther to COUNTER tanks such as the Sherman, mainly the T34. Furthermore, there were about 25 times more Shermans than there were Tigers.

[Mcplkelly]

Correct, the Sherman was not meant to fight against Panthers and Tigers, and rarely did compared to the much more common Mark 4s and StuGs, which it could handle even with the 75mm gun.

[filon102]

actually the sherman had a purpose, which was to support infantry, not tank to tank battle, they had tank destroyers, such as m10 wolverine to do the job of knocking out a tank...

[miltonluvsno1]

it took like 40 shermans on 1 tiger to knock it out....

thats how crap they are.

[Skullstorm17]

M4 Sherman wasn't crap, the Tiger was just unreasonabley awsome. And it took 3 to 5 vehicles to flank a Tiger. 40 M4 Shermans could easily destroy it from the front with that much firepower.

[Moredread25]

Not to mention the biggest problem with the Tiger is that it cost a lot of time an resourses to build one, and it was unreliable. Even if it could stand up to multiple allied tanks, the western allies could just bomb it to destroy it, and had enough tanks to absorb the losses, while the Germans did not.

[lovelegodude]

ya they only made like 3000 tiger tanks. 500 of which had a mechanishm which allowed them to go in 12 feet of water. submebrged that is. but the system made them ever more heavier then they were, so they only made around 500 models with that mechanishm

[ilovemeagan]

Sherman's are one of the main reasons we won the war. They were fast, easy to produce and repair and were highly manueverable. No 1 on 1 they couldnt take on a Tiger but shermans normally traveled in squads or platoons of 4-16.

[majiktotem]

there is not such thing as a better gun or better artillary or better tank all weapons and tanks artillary all that good shit they all had advantages and disadvanteges and shermanz are the shit fer real maybe not as good as other tankz but they helped out alot tankz fer life dont matta wat kind they did wat they were meant to do destroy!

[rodan1950]

WHO WON THE WAR...???

[linckan]

The Germans tanks was way better then USA:s, but the shermens was easier to build and to fix on the battlefield.

[dumapies]

gun size don't matter

the material the projectile is made our of matters

The Panther was a 75mm yet it was stronger than an American 105mm

[Mcplkelly]

76mm gun was equivelent to the 75mm L/48 on the Late Mark 4 panzers and Stug series tanks. In many respects if you consider the IS2 and Panther heavies, the Sherman 76 was the best medium tank in WWII. It was the only tank with wet storage in WWII, thus a low probability of catching fire compared to other tanks, 6x optics, fast turret, good hull armor that was of good quality and not likely to suffer from overmatching, and would note crack and flake like the T-34s armor.

[jackboote]

The Sherman was cheap and mass-produced, those were two of a few good points about it, but otherwise the German and Soviet tanks were leagues better! As 'revolrz22' said: do some research!

[thecrossbowman]

the IS-10 or kv-2 or the jagdpanther is way better then the sherman tank. Really crappy sherman tank.

[revolrz22]

76.2mm gun, nice!

[Herrasmies]

76.2 is small gun on a atnk, it was small in WW2.

[revolrz22]

size doesn't directly equate to power. In addition, many tanks in 1944 were sporting 75/76mm armaments.

[Herrasmies]

mmmm, but one thing is better in smaller ammunition, more velocity.

[revolrz22]

I suggest you do some research.

[leonardokim]

I would rather like this tank makin a destruction performance, hehehe

[ww2gamer]

best tank ever and the tiger!