And a comment on the tank to tank tactics. I have realize that in many cases German tanks did not face head on other tanks. Where there armor gave them an advantage.
As Micheal Wittmann use to do when aiming By Turning the Tank not the turret. So was always facing head on the threat.
@cheeky577 are you drunk? You comment on the substance of the video, clearly having inspired discussion on your part, and then you say what an amateur crap video it is. First, the videographer was a war correspondent under fire in 1945 at a time when actual movie footage was rare. Second, the person who assembled the video painstakingly choreographed tank movements and mapped them on a street level exhibit. It got many hits because of that precision. You obviously watched it.
What 'Battle for Koln' was there in this video? The German tank was knocked out at the very start. I hate misleading titles to videos which intentionally defeat the search engine of YouTube to selfishly get more hits, lying about their content :-(
@cheeky577 What is your problem ? The video shows a tank duel during the battle for Cologne. That's the title of the video too. Most duels are finished with the first shot. As long as only every 111.741th person doesn't understand this, that's ok for me ...
@anicursor this was a well produced video with incredible street-level detail. Thank you. I tracked the locations easily on Google Earth. Amazingly, anyone eating at the McDonald's on the corner of Komedienstrasse and Mazzelenstrasse probably has no idea most of a Panzer tank crew died there, and the Sherman crew up the street.
@revolrz22 In fact, the only thing inferior on the T34 is that they were a bit agricultural to drive, very stiff steering levers with crap ergonomics. In every other way they were superior. Better gun, armour (Sloped on three sides) lower profile, better cross country performance, better suspension. In fact the most revoluntionary tank since the mark 1 in 1916, in fact in history. And the glacis plate has a lot more slope than an M4, which adds lots if thickness to the armour.
@revolrz22 Right!! I used to work in a war museum (IWM) and I stood next to a T34/85 and an M4A4 all day. The T34 had the thicker glacis plate, as all the armour on T34s got thicker as the war went on. The Sherman had sloped armour, yes, right down to the transmission box which is where all the panzers aimed at, and penetrated. Even the 50mm of a panzer III. On the other hand, The Russians did use lots of Shermans, many even in the battle for Berlin. They just did not photograph them much.
great footage seen shorter versions. like you title what was going on. i wonder how it been if they fought head on head as the Pershing was the first good u.s. tank though the kt eat it up.
@BruceFnLee ,you are right, but the time where I published the video there was a 10 min limitation for videos, so I had to create fast subtitles to have more time for the action ...
@IamtheAlienator , we know sure the commander survived and a second soldier too since they survived the war. The gunner died in the turret, another soldier died in a hospital later. The fate of the 5th soldier is unknown.
@anicursor Thank you for your quick response! It's a wonder that anyone survived the crossfire. Really interesting footage and interpretation! Keep it coming!
To StivGun...Their are many things that you just don't understand about why the US Army stuck with the M4A3Sherman. Their where several very good reason, and I shall list them. They are not listed in importance.
1. Mass Production....5 M4Sherman could be produced in the same time it took to produce a M26 Pershing.
2. Mass Production...10 M4A3 Sherman's could be produced for each MK V Panther G
@mdtdragon Everything you said here is bullshit. The T20 tanks could've been produced in just as large numbers as the Sherman, if they had been allowed to replace the Shermans from the early 1943. Sure, the M4 Sherman could be produced in large numbers, but it was poorly armored and poorly armed and many soldiers died unnecessarily fighting in it. The only thing that kept this tank in service was the army's bureaucracy. Stop bringing the numbers issue, 'cause for someone who has the facts, you
@mdtdragon are just laughable. The T-20, at the time it was built could've been mass produced at the same rate as the Sherman and much better designs could've evolved from it. Better than the M26. The decision to not adopt the T20 tank, which was a much more modern design, affected the US capability to design tanks for the entire period of the Cold War. A good question is though, why are you so determined to proved that the Sherman was the right choice when everybody that fought in it say it
@mdtdragon wasn't? That's very peculiar. And the biggest problem is that the bureaucracy that prevented the Sherman to be replaced by more modern designs still exists today in the US military, severely affecting its fighting capabilities by keeping or adopting many inferior weapons systems. So why are you so determined to support this corruption and bureaucracy?
Why the hell did he shoot it so many times, when the crew obviously was abandoning the tank? I feel so sorry for those Germans, just trying to defend their home country.
War was hell for both sides, even more for the allies who took way more military casualties than the Germans did. But still, footage like this just saddens your heart.
There had to be one hell of a pucker factor rolling around in a Sherman knowing what an enemy 75 or 88 could do to you. Jeezus, seeing that TC crawl out of that turret, clothes smoking, sans leg, it's truly a haunting scene.
I produced the documentary on Jim Bates who shot the tank battle and was awarded a bronze star for capturing a tank battle on film. Jim died about ten years ago in Colorado Springs. He was an amazing man who jumped at D-Day and filmed the war for the signal corp in Europe from the time of the invasion until the fall of Germany. Since he was a filmmaker he was always at the front lines. it was an amazing year for a remarkable man.
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.
I'm in Cologne right now, down the street from where this happened. It is a very strange feeling to walk by that corner where the Panther and crew were taken out. Especially since most people have no idea what happened there. Just one tiny horror of millions during the war....
@sebattackable From what I know, only the commander and gunner died, the rest got away. But there are loads of information about this footage, google it :)
Anyone who watched this and thought the germans were being cowards can't have been watching what I saw ... certainly shows the grim reality of tank v tank combat for all involved. getting brewed up in a stricken tank has to be a pretty bad way to go...
@dividednation44 At that time they are still in war plus the tank crew did not surrendered which makes them still hostile.If you were one of the American soldiers and you don't want to shoot then don't but if your officer says "fire" then you don't have a choice but to follow orders. War is terrible isn't it?
@dividednation44 cowardish or brutal? I would say it was brutal. because thats what war is no matter what side you are on. ive never been in battle. but everything else is secondary for your survival.
The way the Army Ground Forces commanders rejected the M26 was really murderous. Look at the guy in the Sherman who died because of its leg wound. That happened to A LOT of American soldiers who faced the Tigers and the Panthers in their obsolete Shermans. And even with the high percentage of casualties amongst Sherman crews, the commanders STILL didn't want to admit the need of a heavy tank with a powerful gun. The adoption of this tank could've avoided MANY unnecessary deaths among US soldiers
@StiviGun1 sooo many shermans were produced...so dependalbe...so late in the war to try and produce the numbers needed...the british got in right with the firefly but the gun used had already been developed....a gun for the sherman would have to be onthe drawing board way before the need was truly understood...besides it was meant to be a exploitation tank with the so called tank killers in another strategy...m18s and the...what was the open turret carrying the 90 mm..M10??
@billybobrustupid The Shermans were not dependable and they could've been replaced from the year 1942 by the T-20 series of tanks, which were better protected and had superior firepower. The Firefly was essentially a Sherman with a better gun. It was just as poorly armored as the regular Sherman and it was just as vulnerable in front of the Panther and Tiger. The Sherman variant that carried the 90 mm gun was the M36. But it was very poorly armored so it was not too good either.
@StiviGun1 Well...what I said was that the issue with the Sherman was that it was made for fast exploitation...not for tank fighting...the US army doctrine of the day was to leave that up to the tank destroyer units.The mechanical side of the Sherman was very very dependalbe. It had a cadillac engine and transmissioin second to none in ww2...had the Panther and tiger series been as dependable then these tanks would have been a even greater factor..these tanks had mechanical issues even late
@billybobrustupid Well, that doctrine has been proven wrong a long time ago. As for Sherman, yeah, from mechanical point of view, it was dependable. It wasn't dependable on the battle field though.
@StiviGun1 its gun wasnt dependable on the battlefield but you could count on the transmission not going out like the panther...it was made for infantry support and running full speed crosscountry.US army doctrine changed before it s choices of weapons did...the german tanks were better but for example only 1000 tiger ones were built and only 300 tiger twos...compare that to the mass production of the sherman..the US didnt have the german/soviet battle test..under the circumstances it did ok
@billybobrustupid The T-20 series of tanks (which should've replaced the Shermans) were just as mechanically reliable. But they also had better protection and better firepower. Also, the US army tanks doctrines was deeply flawed. They should've allowed for heavy tanks that could fight other tanks besides infantry supporting, to be adopted. Using 2 tanks to do 2 things was flawed. This became obvious as early as 1942 and that's when the doctrine should've been changed. The Germans and the
@StiviGun1 I dont think anyone can disagree with that observation. I think it is alot like the m1 garand and the BAR versus the Johnson rifle and Johnson light machine gun. Both Johnsons had better designs (especially the light machine gun) but getting them in production in numbers, swapping them out, training everyone, getting parts in the right places etc proved to be something that couldnt be done under the circumstances of war. The government went with what it had bc of the logistics
@billybobrustupid Well, I don't know much about the Johnson machine gun. But the difference between that and the T-20 vs Sherman situation was that the T-20s could've been introduced in combat without causing any logistical problems. As for the Johnson's rifle and LMG, why do you say they were better than the M1 Garand and Browning BAR? Those are considered some of the best weapon ever made.
@StiviGun1 The Johnson rifle could take loose rounds or five round strippers..the barrel could be taken of with a lever making it a good airborne rifle, the Johnson LMG had a quick change barrel and was lighter than the BAR...the barrel could be changed in the field unlike the BAR...the magazine could be fed five round strippers...the rifles are an argument...I lean on the Garand...the BAR vs the Johnson really goes with the Johnson being a better weapon but the BAR doing more than its job
@billybobrustupid The Johnson rifle used the energy of the recoil to cycle the weapon. That made it pretty unreliable. Far more unreliable than the Browning BAR. Also, the fact that it was fed from a side mounted magazine made it uncomfortable to ware. Sure, the Johnson LMG had some advantages, like faster barrel change capability, but it was unreliable. That's the same mistake they made with the M16. The M16 had about the same advantages over the M14, but M14 was fare more reliable. Replacing
@StiviGun1 you are wrong about the Johnson LMG.It was not unreliable..it was a very good weapon used by the Marines and the First Special Service Force. Faster barrel change kept the weapon in the battle. The BAR was more than adequate. If the Johnson had been developed sooner it would have seen more service. All automatic weapons use recoil energy to cycle..how else does the gun reload itself? The M14 was a very good battle rifle.It designed for European battlefields not the Jungle.
@billybobrustupid Not all automatic weapons use recoil to cycle man... Most of them divert a portion of the expanding gases ti cycle the weapon. The BAR was gas operated. I think it used a system similar to the M14. But you can't compare this with the Sherman vs T-20 tanks, because the BAR was very well suited for the army's needs, while the Sherman was not. That's why it should've been replaced by the T-20 series of tanks.
@billybobrustupid the M14 with the M16 was a mistake that cost many American soldiers their lives in Vietnam. And in Iraq too, but the reports from that war were heavily forged.
@billybobrustupid Russians realized this, the US was the only country that failed to understand this. And this cost many US soldiers their lives.
Just watch this video and see how flawed the US army's tanks doctrine at the time was. watch ? v = gEeQPUp5VTY.
BTW, the gun was not the only thing that was not dependable on the Sherman, it's armor was very poor. And this was a problem that every Sherman variant had, including the tank destroyers versions.
@StiviGun1 The T34 started showing up on the battlefield in 1941...the soviets were even ahead of the germans when it came to tankguns...again the sherman was not desighned for tank vs tank...the tank destroyer doctrine was built on speed or the shoot and scoot theor...I m not arguing the sherman had a good gun or thick armor...I m just saying it had enough decent qualities that unlike the germans the US stuck with this design...if the germans had only produced the Panzer IV...different war
@billybobrustupid The Sherman had enough decent qualities for the beginning of the war, before the Germans introduced the Panther and the Tiger. The US intelligence services found out about the Panther and Tiger's development even from the year 1942. That's when the development on the T20 tanks started and that's when they should've been introduced. They could've been introduced before the Germans introduced the Tiger and the Panther. I'm not saying the Sherman was not a good tank, but in the
@billybobrustupid context of the war it was fighting in, it was obsolete. The fact that it was not designed for fighting tanks made it obsolete almost from the beginning of the war.
@StiviGun1 Actually it was not obsolete in North Africa until the 25 Tiger 1s arrived. It served the British well at El Alamein as did the grant/lee bc until then the British had no tank gun that could fight these two...when Hitler sent 25 Tiger 1s to the Africa Korp things changed for good. The Sheman did finish the war in spite of it s defects....I think the question is what other US tank could have been produced in such great numbers and had the same influence as the sherman?
@billybobrustupid That's exactly what I said. The Sherman was good for the first stages of the war. Once the Germans started to introduce heavy tanks with greater firepower, the Sherman, which was not designed to fight tanks, had become obsolete. And yes, the Sherman did finish the war, but with far greater casualties than it should have.
As for what tank could've been produced other than the Sherman, that was the T-20 series of tanks. As for numbers, well, if the tank is good, you don't need
@billybobrustupid such large numbers. But the T-20 was much simpler than the German tanks and it could've been produced in much larger numbers. Maybe not as large as the Sherman, but still far greater than the complex German tanks.
@GinTonicdrink 1st of all, when did that incident happen? And even if that's true, the jagdtiger was a very heavy tank destroyer, with a 128 mm gun. So of course it was able to destroy a Pershing tank. This doesn't mean that the T-20 series of tanks were not better than the Sherman. Many tank crewmen who fought against Panthers and Tigers in their Shermans could've been saved if they were fighting in the T-20 series of tanks.
The sherman supposedly fit in with the US tank destroyer doctrine; a fast tank used to support infantry and exploit gaps. They said any attempt to make a heavier tank wouldn't fit that doctrine.
@stoogemoedude Well, that was the problem. That doctrine was flawed. It fitted well in the very early stages of the war, but after the Germans started to introduce tanks that could fight other tanks, the Shermans became obsolete. The Germans were using both tanks that could fight other tanks and dedicated tank destroyers. The thing is the American military leaders couldn't understand the fact that there was an armor race taking place during the war.
@stoogemoedude The thing is that even today, short sighted people don't let the US military develop at its full potential. The US needs to learn from its mistakes.
I have always believed the US needs to reform its military into a sleeker and much more efficient army. Standardizing everything, instead of trying to have the best technology always, would make the military much cheaper to run. Update the military every 5-10 years witht he latest gear, not every single day.
@stoogemoedude I do agree with the fact that the US military must be reformed into a more mobile and more efficient fighting force. Colonel MacGregor has talked about this a lot and he even had some very good idea on how to do this, it's just that nobody listened for the exact reason I expressed above. But I don't necessarily agree on the standardization issue. Sometimes, this comes at the cost of performance. Some things can be standardized, but you can't build a powerful army based on this.
@StiviGun1 You can still build a powerful army based on standardization, if you update it every 10-15 years. The benefits of standardization is that it is immensely cheaper than having multiple types of the same class of equipment.
Robert McNamara tried this theory once. And it didn't work out. That's because what's good for the air force, is not necessarily good for the navy and vice versa. And real standardization has already been proven as not being possible to achieve. Look at the F-35. Each variant is almost like a different plane, but the cost differs. So you might as well build a different fighter for each branch which has the capabilities required by every branch. Some things can be standardized, some can't.
@StiviGun1 The things killing the overwhelmingly vast majority of Shermans (Mines, Antitank guns in prepared defensive positions with overlapping fields of fire where they could dictate when to engage against exposed enemies) would have killed the M26 just as easily. Be more dramatic, please.
@revolrz22 So in your opinion, what would've been the solution for decreasing the number of Shermans that were destroyed on the battlefield? Maybe tactics needed to be changed too, but also the weapon itself. The Sherman was not designed to fight tanks. And since the ground warfare during WW2 was about an armor race, they needed a weapon designed for that role. The Shermans should've been replaced from early 1943 with the T-20 series of tanks.
@StiviGun1 The idea that the M4 Sherman was not designed to fight other tanks is something of a myth. I am not sure where this whole idea that the Sherman is purely an anti-infantry vehicle came from. Wartime documents place it as an exploitation vehicle; and if it was not supposed to be able to carry a fight in its own right, why organize it into divisions where it is the primary weapon system?
About the T-23: Do you know how long it takes to tool factories, let alone retool?
@revolrz22 Go learn about the US tank doctrine at that time. It clearly specified that tanks should not fight other tanks, but there role should only be the one to assist infantry in their assault on fortified positions and tranches. Basically, they were stuck in the WW1 doctrines...
Regarding what you asked, why would they use a vehicle for a role it was not designed for, well that's what's outrageous. They didn't want to revise their tanks doctrine so they rather used a tank that was not
@StiviGun1 You tell me to go 'learn,' and then just turn around regurgitating History Channel nonsense. If you do the research you will find that U.S. Tank Doctrine called for the tank to be an exploitation vehicle akin to the British Cruisers in intended role. Not an Infantry Tank. It was to carry out rapid operations following a breakthrough - if it was just infantry support, Armored Divisions using the M4 as the primary weapon system would not have existed.
@revolrz22 Listen here, the Sherman was not designed to fight other tanks, it was designed according to a flawed doctrine that said tanks shouldn't fight other tanks. By the end of 1942, it became obsolete, yet the bureaucrats like you insisted on keeping it despite its flaws. The T20 was a superior tank, adapted for the war that was going on at that time.And yes, the army did keep a vehicle that was not suited for its needs in that war. Those armored divisions were equipped with an unsuited
@StiviGun1 You can say it as many times as you want. The Sherman was made as an exploitation vehicle whether you like it or not; that does not just include infantry support. You still have not addressed the key arguments: If it was just made purely to support infantry, why form divisions out of it where it was the primary weapon system? Here's another: Why was its gun upgraded from the 75-mm M2 to the 75-mm M3, when the only differences were range and armor penetration?
@revolrz22 I never said it was a purely infantry support vehicle... I said it was not good for the war it was fighting in because it was not designed to fight tanks, which was the main quality of a tank in that war. And it remained untill this day. The Sherman was not designed for the requirements of the war it was thrown in.
As for your armored divisions, what part from "they simply used a vehicle to perform tasks it wa not designed for" don't you understand?
@revolrz22 tank. The bureaucrats in the army insisted on keeping it,despite its flaws and many unnecessary fatalites it was bringing among its crews. The Sherman was not the right tank for the war it was fighting in. This tank would've been suited in WW1, not WW2.
@StiviGun1 So, what are these flaws of the Sherman? Thin armor? That's a laugh; its armor protection was superior to anything in its weight class, save for the Panther, on the front arc. Gun? The gun was repeatedly upgraded, but the 75-mm M3 remained in use because guns like the 76.2-mm M1 line have inferior HE, and HE is a far more important shell type than APC because it has an effect on a wider range of targets. You don't design a tank to win tank duels. You design a tank to win wars.
@revolrz22 designed to fight tanks for this exact role... And a lot of people got unnecessarily killed.
Regarding the T-23, stop lying. It could've been produced in very large numbers, if its full production had been given the go ahead. From what I know, the same company that built the Sherman also designed the T20 when they received reports about the new tank development on the German side. So they built a tank that was designed to fight other tanks. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy and, why not,
@revolrz22 the corruption in the US army prevented it from being adopted. When you prevent an improvement on something, you give a blow to the industry. And this has happened to many times in the US recent history and mainly in the last 20 years, after the end of the Cold War. I'm just wondering, why are people like you supporting this type of bureaucracy and corruption.
@StiviGun1 Meanwhile, you are expecting that the transition from the M4 to the T-23 series would have been smooth. In this, you are showing a small amount of ignorance. The M4 was being supplied to Russia, the Commonwealth, France, and U.S. troops not to mention China, Austrailia, and virtually every other Allied power. Suddenly shutting those plants down, untooling, and retooling for a whole new design would have left those powers with a deficit of tanks.
@revolrz22 You don't know what you're talking about. The T-20 tank could've been produced without shutting the Sherman production down. At least not all of a sudden. The Sherman could've been gradually replaced and the soldiers would've received a much better tank to fight with. Your argument of keping an inadequate vehicle just to keep its production opened is the exact reason those bureaucrats were invoking.
@StiviGun1 As far as the T-23; Explain how. Given the enormous production demand on the M4 (because, as said earlier, it was being supplied to every Allied power) shutting down and retooling a plant, which is a process that can take the better part of a year, would severely hamper total tank production for that year.
@revolrz22 You don't know anything about industry. the factories that were building the sherman could've produced the T20 without a problem. this problem never existed, it was just an arhument used by the bureaucrats that never like changing of things. Yes, the T-23 could'e beem introduced from 1942 and all the equipment needed for its construction was already there.
@StiviGun1 Explain to me how factories tooled to manufacture Shermans could have pumped out T-23s? A vehicle with entirely different components, mind, without being retooled and therefor having their production halted.
If you think WWII was just a war of tank duels, you have a gross misunderstanding of the war. Most Sherman knockouts were caused by landmines and AT guns firing from concealment. Not other tanks. Against these, the T-23 would have performed no better.
@revolrz22 You underestimate US industrial strength during WWII. Mass production was not a problem, transport, fuel, maintenance, and most importantly, doctrine, were. Hundreds of T-series prototypes were produced while Shermans were being built. But the heavy tank was not given priority because ,as you said, WWII was not just about tank duels. Generals on the ground had a big say in production of the heavy tank and Patton had a big role in suppressing HT production later in the war.
@AdognamedOp And why exactly would the transport, fuel and maintenance have been a problem? As for doctrine, it could've been changed. The only thing that prevented this was the bureaucracy in the army.
Regarding the US industrial strength during WW2, I just don't understand why wasn't it kept on that level after that war. The US politicians, from Eisenhower to Obama always gave heavy blows to the industry by canceling a lot of stuff. I just understand why they do this.
@AdognamedOp By 'hundreds' you mean enough to equip maybe half a battalion with mixed models of an unproven design, half of which had an inadequate and overly complex electrical drive train.
@StiviGun1 Never said factories could not get new equipment. But it takes time to retool, and that time involves entire swaths of the factory being taken offline which hampers tank production and leads to a deficit in desperately needed material.
@revolrz22 It doesn't take any time. Industrial capacity can grow in a way you can't even imagine, in specially during wartime. The T20 could've been produced in numbers just as large as the Sherman and it could've even replaced the Sherman by the end of the war, with even new, better versions developed, including heavy tanks. If you can't understand that the only reason the Sherman was kept even though it was inadequate, was the US army's officials bureaucracy, then you're just naive.
@revolrz22 You just can't understand that the T20 could've been built simultaneously with the Sherman, can't you? They wouldn't have had to stop production of anything, they could've (and would have, if they had been allowed to) to built the Sherman while they were also building the T20. And this would've gone on until the Sherman would've been completely replaced. Of course, large numbers of Shermans would've been built nevertheless, but at least the army would've gotten a good tank, suited for
@revolrz22 the war it was put to fight in. This, of course, would've had the effect of boosting the US industry even more and it would've also positively influenced the US tanks designs after the war, considering that all the tanks built during the Cold War were designed based on the M26, which in turn was a T20 variation. No matter how you look at it, the fact that they blocked the T20 from being adopted only had negative effects, both on the military and the industry.
@revolrz22 The point is, we had the industrial might to produce a heavy tank. It wasn't retooling that was the problem it was doctrine and bureaucracy. The T-26 had a hydrolic drive train and, although hundreds were built, only a handful saw action in Europe. It's astounding to me why this heavy tank was restricted from seeing action. For some reason "military industrial complex" comes to mind suddenly.
@AdognamedOp Patton had absolutely zero say in anything having to do with the Pershing. The only source that says otherwise is Death Traps, which is a book that gets its dates, names, battles, and numbers almost unanimously wrong. If anything, Patton opposed the TD doctrine from the start, stating the logical evolution of the TD would be a tank, anyway.
@revolrz22 Patton had almost everything to say on not replacing the Sherman with the T20 tanks. He was one of the main reasons for which the T20 was not adopted. And that's not just what some book says, that's the truth. And BTW, the Sherman really was a death trap, when was confronting the German tanks. Soldiers don't give such nicknames to weapons systems for nothing. As for the Pershing, it was adopted after the Battle of the Bulge, a battle that made the need for heavy tanks very obvious.
@StiviGun1 You appear to live in a fantasy world where factories have infinite internal volume and can wish manufacturing tools in place with a snap of the site managers' fingers. Your logic cannot be seriously argued, because it cannot be taken seriously.
Give proof that Patton had anything to do with the procurement of tanks. Also, the often quoted nickname "Ronson" fails to appear in any U.S. wartime manuscript. The lack of evidence for your claims seems to be a common theme in your posts.
@revolrz22 If you think that a factory is limited to producing just one type of product, then you're naive at least. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know anything about the industrial machines used to build certain components of certain machines. And I don't have time to explain all these to you here.
Regarding Patton, go read history. It's widely accepted by the military historians that he, and also other generals, like the commander of the ground forces, opposed
@StiviGun1 A factory producing two types of armored fighting vehicles and a factory producing two different sets of silverware are different matters entirely. You 'don't have time' because you can't. We've seen already that you have the time, because you persist in continuing to argue this. Regarding Patton, it isn't 'widely accepted.' It appears in one, maybe two, books out of hundreds, and the notion is debunked by many more later works.
@revolrz22 No, I don't have time, nor space. Your statement about the factories that can produce "different types of armored vehicles and different types of silverware" just shows that you know nothing about how industry works. You're ignorant and you don't want to learn either. Just like the morons that opposed the Sherman's replacement.
Regarding Patton, name me at least 10 out of those "hundreds of books" and where his role in rejecting the T20 has been "debunked".
Hunnicutt, R. P. Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank
These are the ones I personally own and have read. There are many more out there. Now it's your turn: Tell me these supposed weaknesses of the Sherman? And how would the T-23 have improved the situation, considering that the same things killing Shermans would have killed the T-23 just as easily?
@revolrz22 "Supposed weaknesses"? Every crewman that fought in that tank said it was not good for the war it was fighting in. It was very poorly armored and its gun was a failure in the armored warfare that was taking place in that war. The T23 would've been better protected, as it had sloped armor, it had a better anti-tank gun and overall, it was a more modern design. It could've also been equipped with bigger guns and heavier, better protected versions could've been built. I hope you're not
Not good for the war it was fighting in? Define that, please. Because WWII had very little actual tank jousting.
This 'thin armor' that you claim gave better ballistic tolerances against 75-mm shells than the Panzer IV and the T-34; its closest competitors, so your armor argument means nothing.
So, the T-23 had sloped armor? And the Sherman didn't? Are you seriously telling me the Sherman was not sloped on the glacis plate? Are you blind?
@revolrz22 Yes, not good for the war it was fighting in. It was poorly armored and its 75 mm gun was less than inadequate against German tanks, like Panther and Tiger. A lot of crewmen died unnecessarily in clashes with these German tanks.
Give me a proof that the Sherman had better protection than the T-34. T-34 had sloped armor, which BTW, the Sherman didn't have. Its armor was not sloped at the angle needed to be called sloped armor. The T20 had such armor though.
@StiviGun1 You say it was poorly armored. Again, its glacis had better protection against 75-mm projectiles than the Panzer IV or T-34. You say the T-34 had a sloped glacis, and the Sherman did not have a sloped glacis. This leads me to believe that you are blind, my friend. The formula for effective armor is: effective armor thickness*(1+( (slope multiplier -1)*overmatch factor). Slope multipliers can be found in WO 185/118. Do this for the three tanks and you will see for yourself.
@revolrz22 Look, tell me, what angle was the Sherman's glacis sloped at? Its glacis did not provide double the protection. A plate needs to be sloped at 45 degrees to do that? From what I see, that was not the Sherman's case. But there was one reality that you don't want to see. WW2 was also about an armored warfare and a tank designed specifically for this role was needed. Simple as that.
@revolrz22 like being too tall, which again, was a disadvantage in tanks battle. The T20 was a more modern design, with a lower profile, better protection (because of its sloped armor). Heavier versions with bigger guns could've also been built based on the T20 design. There was absolutely no reason for blocking the T20 production. The only thing that stopped this was the bureaucracy in the AGF.
@StiviGun1 The Sherman was tall,andthis was a flaw. Granted. The design could have been improved with the M4A3 model, which adopted a lower engine which could facilitate a lower height. They did not do that because they did not want to retool factories and interrupt production. I also like how you find profile unacceptable on the M4 Sherman, but then you voraciously argue that the M6 - which was gigantic - should have been produced.
@revolrz22 I did not "voraciously" argued the M6 should've been adopted... It was just a thought. And again, you come with that bullshit about retooling the factories. How many times do I have to tell you that's not how things work, in specially during war. Factories can get any kind of tools and workers are trained to work following sketches, in general. They're trained to build anything if you show them a sketch. At least, that's how they were during WW2, when the US industry simply exploded.
@revolrz22 So again, factories' capacity to mass produce another tank, besides the one they were already producing wouldn't have been a problem at all. So stop bringing this argument. And if your books tell you this, that means their authors only try to justify the bureaucracy in the US military so stop reading them. The US industry in WW2 could've done anything.
Regarding the Sherman, the reason why it was tall, was because of how its transmission was placed, not with its engine. The T20 tanks
@revolrz22 solved this problem by having their transmission placed in the rear (I don't know how else to say it...). So overall, the T20 was a more modern design, with significantly increased protection. Its sloped armor would've offer a protection of 120 mm of RHA at the same weight as the Sherman. It was simply a better, more modern tank, that was denied to the soldiers because of the bureaucracy that existed (which still exists) in the US military.
@StiviGun1 The T-23 also did not have a better gun than the Sherman. Later versions of the Sherman mounted the same 76-mm M1 series guns in the turret borrowed from the T-23.
Those books do not cover the T-20 much. Rather, they discuss the M-26 and why it was not built as soon as it was. You demanded sources that disprove your blind rantings that Patton was an evil mastermind that conspired to get Americans killed by denying them a heavy tank, and I gave them to you.
@revolrz22 The Shermans that were upgunned with that 76 mm gun and turreted with the T20 turret were built in too smaller numbers, again, because of the same bureaucracy that stopped the T20 from being mass produced. So this argument is hogwash.
Regarding the M26, why exactly do those books say it couldn't be built earlier? Many historians say it could've been made ready for the Normandy Invasion. So what argument do those books use? It's not that lack of industrial capacity, I hope...
@StiviGun1 76-mm armed Shermans formed 57% of all tanks produced in the late production run, with a total of 10,703 samples being produced. That's more Panzer IVs than Germany ever even made. To say they were in 'too small of numbers' is silly; entire Soviet Red Guard divisions were armed with the tank.
Those books cite General Leslie McNair as the primary opponent to the M26's production. Not Patton. In fact, Patton was never present at any of the trials concerning the M26.
@revolrz22 10,703 is small for a tank that relied on numbers. The T20 could've been produced in much larger numbers and it would've been a much better design. And when the hell did the soviets use the Sherman? Their T-34 was superior from every point of view.
As for who was responsible for blocking the delivery of a new, better tank, I never emphasized on Patton. I said that the AGF top officials, including the AGF commander. (Leslie McNair). So my point from the beginning was that the T20 was
@StiviGun1 If yoy don't think the Soviets used the T-34, what point is there in continuing? There is pictographic evidence of it, and there are accounts on the internet from tankers who crewed the T-34 and Sherman - and some of them prefered the Sherman. In fact, the Sherman was superior in several aspects. But you don't care, because none of your arguments are based on anything more than your personal emotional crusade.
@revolrz22 I never said I don't believe the soviets used the T-34... I said I don't believe they used the Sherman. And what were those areas the Sherman was superior? It wasn't better protected, that's bullshit. The T-34's sloped armor provided much better protection, since its sloped armor at 45 degrees doubles the protection. It was faster, more mobile, it had a more powerful gun. So in what way was the Sherman better?
@StiviGun1 You can not believe the Russians used the Sherman all you want, but they did. They acknowledge it, there are pictures, and entire tank corps were outfitted with it. The M4 had superior armor on the front arc, superior fire control, had a turret basket, and better ammunition storage. Your saying that the T-34 had "better armor and firepower" shows that you don't actually care about this topic; you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
@revolrz22 Well, present me evidence that the Russians used the Sherman. And also, show me evidence that Sherman's protection was better than the T-34's and that its short, 75 mm gun was more powerful than the T-34's 76,2 mm anti-tank gun. You don't even know what an anti-tank gun is if you say the Sherman's gun was more powerful.
@StiviGun1 You can hit google and find pictures of Soviet crews using M4A2 tanks. The Sherman having thicker armor on the front arc is a matter of mathematics, one that you can easily calculate if you know the thickness of each plate, the overmatch value against a given diamiter of shell, and the multiplier for a given slope. I never said the Sherman's guns were superior. In fact, they were very much on par in terms of armor penetration. It did, however, have superior fire control.
@revolrz22 Where are those "entire units" that you say were equipped with the Sherman? This is bullshit. The Russians used the T-34, which is universally accepted by all experts to have been superior to the Sherman. Only you say otherwise. They may have used the Sherman at the very beginnings of the war, but after the T-34 started to be mass produced, there were no Shermans left in the Russian army. The T-34's protection was superior because of its sloped armor, that's a fact. Its gun
@StiviGun1 "Universally accepted by all experts" meaning "I watched the history channel and they said so, so I believe it without having any literary sources presented to me and having none to back up my claim." What units were equipped with the M4 is information which is readily available on the internet. The fact that you have not looked for yourself indicates that you don't care about the subject as much as you think you do.
@revolrz22 Like I said, the red army's main tank was the T-34. After the T-34 started being mass produced, the Shermans were no longer used by the Russians. The T-34 was better from all points of view, including frontal protection, as I saw someone correcting you a day ago. You speak about "literary sources", but everything you've said is false. Like the statement that the Sherman had a glacis front plate. Your statements on the US industrial capacity during WW2 also show how well
@StiviGun1 All of the data I have presented here is easily receivable on the internet. Youtube will not permit me to post links, so it falls to you to do the research. As for pictures of soviet Shermans, try going to google and typing "Soviet Sherman" in a picture search. You will even find ones of Shermans and T-34s right next to one another. The T-34 glacis plate was not thicker. Go look for yourself. Again, information is readily available. Your claims aren't based on knowledge.
@revolrz22 And what exactly is that data? You haven't presented any. I saw a guy correcting you who said that the T-34's plate glacis was stronger. He even said that the T-34's armor got thicker as the war progressed and the the armored warfare was evolving. He worked in a museum that had both the Sherman and the T-34, so I'm gonna believe him instead of you. You only proved to be a biased guy with a curious ambition to defend the decision to not replace the Sherman.
@StiviGun1 He could have said whatever he wanted. The turret armor of the T-34 changed, obviously, when a new turret was added. However, the hull plating did not change. I gave you websites to look this stuff up in (since you said books were invalid since you could not access them.) Youtube will not allow me to post direct links. It is up to you to go to the URLs I gave you and look.
@revolrz22 He was talking about the glacis plates, not the turrets. Yes, the T-34's armor was thickened according to the changes in armored warfare during that war. That's something you didn't do, which cost you a lot of your soldiers' lives.
Regarding those URLs, it's simple. Post them on my profile. It's very easy. The reason why you don't do this, is because you have nothing. You never posted any links, so stop lying.
@StiviGun1 T-34s glacis armor was never thickened. That's fact. I have given you plenty of sources to the contrary, you just refuse to look at them. Prove that the T-34s glacis was thickened if it's so obvious. Protip: You can't, because no reputable source says that. Because it's not true. You give no sources, but you demand sources and then ignore that I post them. But very well, I will PM you sources for all my statements so that you can post here that I never did.
@revolrz22 Stop lying. Why are you doing this? You never sent me anything. You realize how pathetic you are lying like this for some bullshit reason? Why the fuck are you so desperate about this Sherman things? You haven't sent me anything, so stop lying.
@revolrz22 Regarding the Shermans the soviets used. Like I said, they probably used at the very beginning of the war, when the T-34 did not reach the sufficient numbers. But after the T-34's numbers started to grow, the soviets probably used the Sherman for very insignificant battles and campaigns. But just because the soviets made use of everything they could during wartime, doesn't mean the Sherman was better than he T-34 or even that the Sherman was a suited tank to fight WW2.
@StiviGun1 The Sherman was being used by Russia from the first chance they got to get them to the very end. Again, your argument in this regard is nothing more than "Um, probably." Mine is based on pictorial evidence, personal accounts, and official documents from the Russians themselves. Opinions of the Sherman were mixed in Russia; with some crews, like those of Dmitri Loza (author of a book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks) overall preferring it over the T-34.
@revolrz22 They were used in very small numbers and only because it was. They weren't just gonna ditch them just because they had something better after that. They had to use everything they had in that war. That's why they continued using the Sherman even after the T-34 started being mass produced.
BTW, the reason why some Russian soldiers preferred the Sherman might have been because it offered a better comfort for the crew, not because it was more effective in combat.
And a comment on the tank to tank tactics. I have realize that in many cases German tanks did not face head on other tanks. Where there armor gave them an advantage.
As Micheal Wittmann use to do when aiming By Turning the Tank not the turret. So was always facing head on the threat.
And again Great Work!!
EkatiSS 20 hours ago
Very good video!
EkatiSS 20 hours ago
Why this video got 111,740 hits is utterly beyond me. Amateur crap video.
cheeky577 5 days ago
@cheeky577 are you drunk? You comment on the substance of the video, clearly having inspired discussion on your part, and then you say what an amateur crap video it is. First, the videographer was a war correspondent under fire in 1945 at a time when actual movie footage was rare. Second, the person who assembled the video painstakingly choreographed tank movements and mapped them on a street level exhibit. It got many hits because of that precision. You obviously watched it.
Moosey1789 44 minutes ago
What 'Battle for Koln' was there in this video? The German tank was knocked out at the very start. I hate misleading titles to videos which intentionally defeat the search engine of YouTube to selfishly get more hits, lying about their content :-(
cheeky577 5 days ago
@cheeky577 It was the last German tank in the city and the fought until they could fight no more. Brave men didn't only serve the allies.
Profix0 5 days ago
@cheeky577 What is your problem ? The video shows a tank duel during the battle for Cologne. That's the title of the video too. Most duels are finished with the first shot. As long as only every 111.741th person doesn't understand this, that's ok for me ...
anicursor 2 days ago
@anicursor this was a well produced video with incredible street-level detail. Thank you. I tracked the locations easily on Google Earth. Amazingly, anyone eating at the McDonald's on the corner of Komedienstrasse and Mazzelenstrasse probably has no idea most of a Panzer tank crew died there, and the Sherman crew up the street.
Moosey1789 54 minutes ago
@Moosey1789 Oh, I take that back, it looks like a fair number of the crew got out. But not all.
Moosey1789 52 minutes ago
and the great panther had fallen...
Holmannnnnnn 1 week ago
Thanks !!
My Grandmother jumpt on THIS tank at the "Domplatte" in Cologne and sang "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles, über alles auf der Welt ....!"
Wow, thanks for uploading!
Danke fürs hochladen! :) :)
NeuGermania 1 week ago
ROAST KRAUT
walleyrt69 1 month ago
Great effort. Great stuff !!!
MrPhantomFury 1 month ago
@revolrz22 In fact, the only thing inferior on the T34 is that they were a bit agricultural to drive, very stiff steering levers with crap ergonomics. In every other way they were superior. Better gun, armour (Sloped on three sides) lower profile, better cross country performance, better suspension. In fact the most revoluntionary tank since the mark 1 in 1916, in fact in history. And the glacis plate has a lot more slope than an M4, which adds lots if thickness to the armour.
SvenTviking 1 month ago
@revolrz22 Right!! I used to work in a war museum (IWM) and I stood next to a T34/85 and an M4A4 all day. The T34 had the thicker glacis plate, as all the armour on T34s got thicker as the war went on. The Sherman had sloped armour, yes, right down to the transmission box which is where all the panzers aimed at, and penetrated. Even the 50mm of a panzer III. On the other hand, The Russians did use lots of Shermans, many even in the battle for Berlin. They just did not photograph them much.
SvenTviking 1 month ago
great footage seen shorter versions. like you title what was going on. i wonder how it been if they fought head on head as the Pershing was the first good u.s. tank though the kt eat it up.
starknight97 1 month ago
This makes the game Man Of War look so damn real, physics are almost the same.
kostov9 1 month ago
Very good imo, seen the video before but never knew the tactical situation of events. Great Job!
Swimding 1 month ago
so it means.. there are tree group of armys fighting each other or means..they are rumble?
johnericsantiago28 1 month ago
Fastest subtitles ever :O
Thanks anyway, never seen this before
BruceFnLee 2 months ago
@BruceFnLee ,you are right, but the time where I published the video there was a 10 min limitation for videos, so I had to create fast subtitles to have more time for the action ...
anicursor 2 months ago
@anicursor Thanks for the effort brosephaustianopolus
BruceFnLee 2 months ago
....awesome document!!!...bad soundtrack...
McFly1 2 months ago
Excellent! I've seen this video many times but the descriptions are very helpful. Thanks.
veltro75 2 months ago
Who of the German crew survived? Commander, Radio operator, Gunner, Loader and/or driver?
IamtheAlienator 2 months ago
@IamtheAlienator , we know sure the commander survived and a second soldier too since they survived the war. The gunner died in the turret, another soldier died in a hospital later. The fate of the 5th soldier is unknown.
anicursor 2 months ago 2
@anicursor Thank you for your quick response! It's a wonder that anyone survived the crossfire. Really interesting footage and interpretation! Keep it coming!
IamtheAlienator 1 month ago
But above all, Heavenly Father,
See us do our duty well.
And if we fall in combat,
In the mist of morning grey,
We ask Thee, Heavenly Father,
Take the pain and sorrow away.
Hard fought, and well fought. They did their duty, honors to them.
Czechsix 2 months ago
@Czechsix well said friend
johndoe3k5 2 months ago
HAHAHA its my city köln in germany fuckin americans and nazis destroyed my beautiful city :(
MusicAndGamesTv 2 months ago
@MusicAndGamesTv Just got back from Bonn, took a couple of day trips into Cologne, your city is still awesome!
ThePeeper1968 2 months ago
Great video, shows what we usually only hear stories about. Thanks for sharing.
hennigm 2 months ago
That's actually pretty amazing to see real in-battle film like that.
WilliamBrown93 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
damosanchex 2 months ago
isnt it panzer tank
rmossman88 3 months ago
OMG! The second hit must have fucked up with the legs of the gunner!
gameplaysbr 3 months ago
To StivGun...Their are many things that you just don't understand about why the US Army stuck with the M4A3Sherman. Their where several very good reason, and I shall list them. They are not listed in importance.
1. Mass Production....5 M4Sherman could be produced in the same time it took to produce a M26 Pershing.
2. Mass Production...10 M4A3 Sherman's could be produced for each MK V Panther G
3. Tonnage and M26 Pershing Production Problem
4. Numbers was more critical
5. More reasons
mdtdragon 3 months ago
@mdtdragon Everything you said here is bullshit. The T20 tanks could've been produced in just as large numbers as the Sherman, if they had been allowed to replace the Shermans from the early 1943. Sure, the M4 Sherman could be produced in large numbers, but it was poorly armored and poorly armed and many soldiers died unnecessarily fighting in it. The only thing that kept this tank in service was the army's bureaucracy. Stop bringing the numbers issue, 'cause for someone who has the facts, you
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@mdtdragon are just laughable. The T-20, at the time it was built could've been mass produced at the same rate as the Sherman and much better designs could've evolved from it. Better than the M26. The decision to not adopt the T20 tank, which was a much more modern design, affected the US capability to design tanks for the entire period of the Cold War. A good question is though, why are you so determined to proved that the Sherman was the right choice when everybody that fought in it say it
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@mdtdragon wasn't? That's very peculiar. And the biggest problem is that the bureaucracy that prevented the Sherman to be replaced by more modern designs still exists today in the US military, severely affecting its fighting capabilities by keeping or adopting many inferior weapons systems. So why are you so determined to support this corruption and bureaucracy?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
Why the hell did he shoot it so many times, when the crew obviously was abandoning the tank? I feel so sorry for those Germans, just trying to defend their home country.
War was hell for both sides, even more for the allies who took way more military casualties than the Germans did. But still, footage like this just saddens your heart.
Draious 3 months ago
There had to be one hell of a pucker factor rolling around in a Sherman knowing what an enemy 75 or 88 could do to you. Jeezus, seeing that TC crawl out of that turret, clothes smoking, sans leg, it's truly a haunting scene.
HauptmannAmerica 3 months ago
i bet this place smells nice
xxuncexx 3 months ago
I produced the documentary on Jim Bates who shot the tank battle and was awarded a bronze star for capturing a tank battle on film. Jim died about ten years ago in Colorado Springs. He was an amazing man who jumped at D-Day and filmed the war for the signal corp in Europe from the time of the invasion until the fall of Germany. Since he was a filmmaker he was always at the front lines. it was an amazing year for a remarkable man.
TonyTony1492 3 months ago
I've been up the Great Cologne cathedral in 1993. I never knew that such an epic tank battle occured beneath it. Thanks
ToonandBBfan 3 months ago
yep 4 us tanks vs I german tank - well done!
PJ3love 4 months ago
see them Holes in the Panther. wow
masterod1 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
I'm in Cologne right now, down the street from where this happened. It is a very strange feeling to walk by that corner where the Panther and crew were taken out. Especially since most people have no idea what happened there. Just one tiny horror of millions during the war....
markchee5 4 months ago 3
They started filming after the panther took out 2 shermans..lawl...
Rangerfull3 4 months ago
Watching the the Panther brew up, I really felt for the crew; that's a hellish way to die.
trinitymike 4 months ago 6
For f*cks sake it seems that the whole city was flooded with cameras on this occasions including airborne ones.
VersusARCH 4 months ago
Incredible war footage.
evilcatpillow 4 months ago 2
So did the commander get killed by MG fire?
gotubeogle 5 months ago
Does anyone know, which of the german tank crew died? Because all 5 did came out, or?
Feelin' sad with both tank crews.
(sorry for bad english)
sebattackable 6 months ago
@sebattackable From what I know, only the commander and gunner died, the rest got away. But there are loads of information about this footage, google it :)
Draious 3 months ago
General Maurice Rose commander of the 3rd was a brilliant!
studenthistory 6 months ago
Anyone who watched this and thought the germans were being cowards can't have been watching what I saw ... certainly shows the grim reality of tank v tank combat for all involved. getting brewed up in a stricken tank has to be a pretty bad way to go...
CNCTEMATIC 6 months ago
the german tank crew was running away and their panther tank was disabled, yet they keep shooting! fucking typical by those cowards
dividednation44 6 months ago
@dividednation44 At that time they are still in war plus the tank crew did not surrendered which makes them still hostile.If you were one of the American soldiers and you don't want to shoot then don't but if your officer says "fire" then you don't have a choice but to follow orders. War is terrible isn't it?
Burugudunstuy123 6 months ago
@dividednation44 cowardish or brutal? I would say it was brutal. because thats what war is no matter what side you are on. ive never been in battle. but everything else is secondary for your survival.
johndoe3k5 6 months ago
i've uploaded a collection of pics from cologne before the war:
/watch?v=-1s4WvmTmGE
rebuildcologne 6 months ago
Looks like the Panthers gunner fell back into the turret after that third hit.
danvega18 6 months ago
The Germans in Normandy called the Sherman tanks "Tommy Cookers" for the way they so easily were "brewed up" with one shot.
boxwoodgreen 6 months ago
damn his leg was smoking
tovarislas 7 months ago
But who shot the film ?
CALZOLA 7 months ago
The way the Army Ground Forces commanders rejected the M26 was really murderous. Look at the guy in the Sherman who died because of its leg wound. That happened to A LOT of American soldiers who faced the Tigers and the Panthers in their obsolete Shermans. And even with the high percentage of casualties amongst Sherman crews, the commanders STILL didn't want to admit the need of a heavy tank with a powerful gun. The adoption of this tank could've avoided MANY unnecessary deaths among US soldiers
StiviGun1 7 months ago 22
@StiviGun1 sooo many shermans were produced...so dependalbe...so late in the war to try and produce the numbers needed...the british got in right with the firefly but the gun used had already been developed....a gun for the sherman would have to be onthe drawing board way before the need was truly understood...besides it was meant to be a exploitation tank with the so called tank killers in another strategy...m18s and the...what was the open turret carrying the 90 mm..M10??
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid The Shermans were not dependable and they could've been replaced from the year 1942 by the T-20 series of tanks, which were better protected and had superior firepower. The Firefly was essentially a Sherman with a better gun. It was just as poorly armored as the regular Sherman and it was just as vulnerable in front of the Panther and Tiger. The Sherman variant that carried the 90 mm gun was the M36. But it was very poorly armored so it was not too good either.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Well...what I said was that the issue with the Sherman was that it was made for fast exploitation...not for tank fighting...the US army doctrine of the day was to leave that up to the tank destroyer units.The mechanical side of the Sherman was very very dependalbe. It had a cadillac engine and transmissioin second to none in ww2...had the Panther and tiger series been as dependable then these tanks would have been a even greater factor..these tanks had mechanical issues even late
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid Well, that doctrine has been proven wrong a long time ago. As for Sherman, yeah, from mechanical point of view, it was dependable. It wasn't dependable on the battle field though.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 its gun wasnt dependable on the battlefield but you could count on the transmission not going out like the panther...it was made for infantry support and running full speed crosscountry.US army doctrine changed before it s choices of weapons did...the german tanks were better but for example only 1000 tiger ones were built and only 300 tiger twos...compare that to the mass production of the sherman..the US didnt have the german/soviet battle test..under the circumstances it did ok
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid The T-20 series of tanks (which should've replaced the Shermans) were just as mechanically reliable. But they also had better protection and better firepower. Also, the US army tanks doctrines was deeply flawed. They should've allowed for heavy tanks that could fight other tanks besides infantry supporting, to be adopted. Using 2 tanks to do 2 things was flawed. This became obvious as early as 1942 and that's when the doctrine should've been changed. The Germans and the
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 I dont think anyone can disagree with that observation. I think it is alot like the m1 garand and the BAR versus the Johnson rifle and Johnson light machine gun. Both Johnsons had better designs (especially the light machine gun) but getting them in production in numbers, swapping them out, training everyone, getting parts in the right places etc proved to be something that couldnt be done under the circumstances of war. The government went with what it had bc of the logistics
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid Well, I don't know much about the Johnson machine gun. But the difference between that and the T-20 vs Sherman situation was that the T-20s could've been introduced in combat without causing any logistical problems. As for the Johnson's rifle and LMG, why do you say they were better than the M1 Garand and Browning BAR? Those are considered some of the best weapon ever made.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 The Johnson rifle could take loose rounds or five round strippers..the barrel could be taken of with a lever making it a good airborne rifle, the Johnson LMG had a quick change barrel and was lighter than the BAR...the barrel could be changed in the field unlike the BAR...the magazine could be fed five round strippers...the rifles are an argument...I lean on the Garand...the BAR vs the Johnson really goes with the Johnson being a better weapon but the BAR doing more than its job
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid The Johnson rifle used the energy of the recoil to cycle the weapon. That made it pretty unreliable. Far more unreliable than the Browning BAR. Also, the fact that it was fed from a side mounted magazine made it uncomfortable to ware. Sure, the Johnson LMG had some advantages, like faster barrel change capability, but it was unreliable. That's the same mistake they made with the M16. The M16 had about the same advantages over the M14, but M14 was fare more reliable. Replacing
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 you are wrong about the Johnson LMG.It was not unreliable..it was a very good weapon used by the Marines and the First Special Service Force. Faster barrel change kept the weapon in the battle. The BAR was more than adequate. If the Johnson had been developed sooner it would have seen more service. All automatic weapons use recoil energy to cycle..how else does the gun reload itself? The M14 was a very good battle rifle.It designed for European battlefields not the Jungle.
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid Not all automatic weapons use recoil to cycle man... Most of them divert a portion of the expanding gases ti cycle the weapon. The BAR was gas operated. I think it used a system similar to the M14. But you can't compare this with the Sherman vs T-20 tanks, because the BAR was very well suited for the army's needs, while the Sherman was not. That's why it should've been replaced by the T-20 series of tanks.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid the M14 with the M16 was a mistake that cost many American soldiers their lives in Vietnam. And in Iraq too, but the reports from that war were heavily forged.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid Russians realized this, the US was the only country that failed to understand this. And this cost many US soldiers their lives.
Just watch this video and see how flawed the US army's tanks doctrine at the time was. watch ? v = gEeQPUp5VTY.
BTW, the gun was not the only thing that was not dependable on the Sherman, it's armor was very poor. And this was a problem that every Sherman variant had, including the tank destroyers versions.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 The T34 started showing up on the battlefield in 1941...the soviets were even ahead of the germans when it came to tankguns...again the sherman was not desighned for tank vs tank...the tank destroyer doctrine was built on speed or the shoot and scoot theor...I m not arguing the sherman had a good gun or thick armor...I m just saying it had enough decent qualities that unlike the germans the US stuck with this design...if the germans had only produced the Panzer IV...different war
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid The Sherman had enough decent qualities for the beginning of the war, before the Germans introduced the Panther and the Tiger. The US intelligence services found out about the Panther and Tiger's development even from the year 1942. That's when the development on the T20 tanks started and that's when they should've been introduced. They could've been introduced before the Germans introduced the Tiger and the Panther. I'm not saying the Sherman was not a good tank, but in the
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid context of the war it was fighting in, it was obsolete. The fact that it was not designed for fighting tanks made it obsolete almost from the beginning of the war.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Actually it was not obsolete in North Africa until the 25 Tiger 1s arrived. It served the British well at El Alamein as did the grant/lee bc until then the British had no tank gun that could fight these two...when Hitler sent 25 Tiger 1s to the Africa Korp things changed for good. The Sheman did finish the war in spite of it s defects....I think the question is what other US tank could have been produced in such great numbers and had the same influence as the sherman?
billybobrustupid 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid That's exactly what I said. The Sherman was good for the first stages of the war. Once the Germans started to introduce heavy tanks with greater firepower, the Sherman, which was not designed to fight tanks, had become obsolete. And yes, the Sherman did finish the war, but with far greater casualties than it should have.
As for what tank could've been produced other than the Sherman, that was the T-20 series of tanks. As for numbers, well, if the tank is good, you don't need
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@billybobrustupid such large numbers. But the T-20 was much simpler than the German tanks and it could've been produced in much larger numbers. Maybe not as large as the Sherman, but still far greater than the complex German tanks.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 and what about the Pershing that got completely fucked by a Jagdtiger? nobody survived that lol.
GinTonicdrink 5 months ago
@GinTonicdrink 1st of all, when did that incident happen? And even if that's true, the jagdtiger was a very heavy tank destroyer, with a 128 mm gun. So of course it was able to destroy a Pershing tank. This doesn't mean that the T-20 series of tanks were not better than the Sherman. Many tank crewmen who fought against Panthers and Tigers in their Shermans could've been saved if they were fighting in the T-20 series of tanks.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1
The sherman supposedly fit in with the US tank destroyer doctrine; a fast tank used to support infantry and exploit gaps. They said any attempt to make a heavier tank wouldn't fit that doctrine.
stoogemoedude 5 months ago
@stoogemoedude Well, that was the problem. That doctrine was flawed. It fitted well in the very early stages of the war, but after the Germans started to introduce tanks that could fight other tanks, the Shermans became obsolete. The Germans were using both tanks that could fight other tanks and dedicated tank destroyers. The thing is the American military leaders couldn't understand the fact that there was an armor race taking place during the war.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1
I never said it was a good doctrine XD Just explaining what the commanders' rationale was. You are completely correct though.
stoogemoedude 5 months ago
@stoogemoedude The thing is that even today, short sighted people don't let the US military develop at its full potential. The US needs to learn from its mistakes.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1
I have always believed the US needs to reform its military into a sleeker and much more efficient army. Standardizing everything, instead of trying to have the best technology always, would make the military much cheaper to run. Update the military every 5-10 years witht he latest gear, not every single day.
stoogemoedude 5 months ago
@stoogemoedude I do agree with the fact that the US military must be reformed into a more mobile and more efficient fighting force. Colonel MacGregor has talked about this a lot and he even had some very good idea on how to do this, it's just that nobody listened for the exact reason I expressed above. But I don't necessarily agree on the standardization issue. Sometimes, this comes at the cost of performance. Some things can be standardized, but you can't build a powerful army based on this.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 You can still build a powerful army based on standardization, if you update it every 10-15 years. The benefits of standardization is that it is immensely cheaper than having multiple types of the same class of equipment.
stoogemoedude 5 months ago
Robert McNamara tried this theory once. And it didn't work out. That's because what's good for the air force, is not necessarily good for the navy and vice versa. And real standardization has already been proven as not being possible to achieve. Look at the F-35. Each variant is almost like a different plane, but the cost differs. So you might as well build a different fighter for each branch which has the capabilities required by every branch. Some things can be standardized, some can't.
StiviGun1 5 months ago
@StiviGun1 The speedy shermans outperformed other tanks in battle.
alanhern17 3 months ago
@alanhern17 "In battle". There are many things to consider when you say "in battle". Which one are you referring to?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 The things killing the overwhelmingly vast majority of Shermans (Mines, Antitank guns in prepared defensive positions with overlapping fields of fire where they could dictate when to engage against exposed enemies) would have killed the M26 just as easily. Be more dramatic, please.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 So in your opinion, what would've been the solution for decreasing the number of Shermans that were destroyed on the battlefield? Maybe tactics needed to be changed too, but also the weapon itself. The Sherman was not designed to fight tanks. And since the ground warfare during WW2 was about an armor race, they needed a weapon designed for that role. The Shermans should've been replaced from early 1943 with the T-20 series of tanks.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 The idea that the M4 Sherman was not designed to fight other tanks is something of a myth. I am not sure where this whole idea that the Sherman is purely an anti-infantry vehicle came from. Wartime documents place it as an exploitation vehicle; and if it was not supposed to be able to carry a fight in its own right, why organize it into divisions where it is the primary weapon system?
About the T-23: Do you know how long it takes to tool factories, let alone retool?
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 Go learn about the US tank doctrine at that time. It clearly specified that tanks should not fight other tanks, but there role should only be the one to assist infantry in their assault on fortified positions and tranches. Basically, they were stuck in the WW1 doctrines...
Regarding what you asked, why would they use a vehicle for a role it was not designed for, well that's what's outrageous. They didn't want to revise their tanks doctrine so they rather used a tank that was not
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 You tell me to go 'learn,' and then just turn around regurgitating History Channel nonsense. If you do the research you will find that U.S. Tank Doctrine called for the tank to be an exploitation vehicle akin to the British Cruisers in intended role. Not an Infantry Tank. It was to carry out rapid operations following a breakthrough - if it was just infantry support, Armored Divisions using the M4 as the primary weapon system would not have existed.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 Listen here, the Sherman was not designed to fight other tanks, it was designed according to a flawed doctrine that said tanks shouldn't fight other tanks. By the end of 1942, it became obsolete, yet the bureaucrats like you insisted on keeping it despite its flaws. The T20 was a superior tank, adapted for the war that was going on at that time.And yes, the army did keep a vehicle that was not suited for its needs in that war. Those armored divisions were equipped with an unsuited
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 You can say it as many times as you want. The Sherman was made as an exploitation vehicle whether you like it or not; that does not just include infantry support. You still have not addressed the key arguments: If it was just made purely to support infantry, why form divisions out of it where it was the primary weapon system? Here's another: Why was its gun upgraded from the 75-mm M2 to the 75-mm M3, when the only differences were range and armor penetration?
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 I never said it was a purely infantry support vehicle... I said it was not good for the war it was fighting in because it was not designed to fight tanks, which was the main quality of a tank in that war. And it remained untill this day. The Sherman was not designed for the requirements of the war it was thrown in.
As for your armored divisions, what part from "they simply used a vehicle to perform tasks it wa not designed for" don't you understand?
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@revolrz22 tank. The bureaucrats in the army insisted on keeping it,despite its flaws and many unnecessary fatalites it was bringing among its crews. The Sherman was not the right tank for the war it was fighting in. This tank would've been suited in WW1, not WW2.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 So, what are these flaws of the Sherman? Thin armor? That's a laugh; its armor protection was superior to anything in its weight class, save for the Panther, on the front arc. Gun? The gun was repeatedly upgraded, but the 75-mm M3 remained in use because guns like the 76.2-mm M1 line have inferior HE, and HE is a far more important shell type than APC because it has an effect on a wider range of targets. You don't design a tank to win tank duels. You design a tank to win wars.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 designed to fight tanks for this exact role... And a lot of people got unnecessarily killed.
Regarding the T-23, stop lying. It could've been produced in very large numbers, if its full production had been given the go ahead. From what I know, the same company that built the Sherman also designed the T20 when they received reports about the new tank development on the German side. So they built a tank that was designed to fight other tanks. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy and, why not,
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@revolrz22 the corruption in the US army prevented it from being adopted. When you prevent an improvement on something, you give a blow to the industry. And this has happened to many times in the US recent history and mainly in the last 20 years, after the end of the Cold War. I'm just wondering, why are people like you supporting this type of bureaucracy and corruption.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Meanwhile, you are expecting that the transition from the M4 to the T-23 series would have been smooth. In this, you are showing a small amount of ignorance. The M4 was being supplied to Russia, the Commonwealth, France, and U.S. troops not to mention China, Austrailia, and virtually every other Allied power. Suddenly shutting those plants down, untooling, and retooling for a whole new design would have left those powers with a deficit of tanks.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 You don't know what you're talking about. The T-20 tank could've been produced without shutting the Sherman production down. At least not all of a sudden. The Sherman could've been gradually replaced and the soldiers would've received a much better tank to fight with. Your argument of keping an inadequate vehicle just to keep its production opened is the exact reason those bureaucrats were invoking.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 As far as the T-23; Explain how. Given the enormous production demand on the M4 (because, as said earlier, it was being supplied to every Allied power) shutting down and retooling a plant, which is a process that can take the better part of a year, would severely hamper total tank production for that year.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 You don't know anything about industry. the factories that were building the sherman could've produced the T20 without a problem. this problem never existed, it was just an arhument used by the bureaucrats that never like changing of things. Yes, the T-23 could'e beem introduced from 1942 and all the equipment needed for its construction was already there.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Explain to me how factories tooled to manufacture Shermans could have pumped out T-23s? A vehicle with entirely different components, mind, without being retooled and therefor having their production halted.
If you think WWII was just a war of tank duels, you have a gross misunderstanding of the war. Most Sherman knockouts were caused by landmines and AT guns firing from concealment. Not other tanks. Against these, the T-23 would have performed no better.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 You underestimate US industrial strength during WWII. Mass production was not a problem, transport, fuel, maintenance, and most importantly, doctrine, were. Hundreds of T-series prototypes were produced while Shermans were being built. But the heavy tank was not given priority because ,as you said, WWII was not just about tank duels. Generals on the ground had a big say in production of the heavy tank and Patton had a big role in suppressing HT production later in the war.
AdognamedOp 3 months ago
@AdognamedOp And why exactly would the transport, fuel and maintenance have been a problem? As for doctrine, it could've been changed. The only thing that prevented this was the bureaucracy in the army.
Regarding the US industrial strength during WW2, I just don't understand why wasn't it kept on that level after that war. The US politicians, from Eisenhower to Obama always gave heavy blows to the industry by canceling a lot of stuff. I just understand why they do this.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@AdognamedOp By 'hundreds' you mean enough to equip maybe half a battalion with mixed models of an unproven design, half of which had an inadequate and overly complex electrical drive train.
@StiviGun1 Never said factories could not get new equipment. But it takes time to retool, and that time involves entire swaths of the factory being taken offline which hampers tank production and leads to a deficit in desperately needed material.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 It doesn't take any time. Industrial capacity can grow in a way you can't even imagine, in specially during wartime. The T20 could've been produced in numbers just as large as the Sherman and it could've even replaced the Sherman by the end of the war, with even new, better versions developed, including heavy tanks. If you can't understand that the only reason the Sherman was kept even though it was inadequate, was the US army's officials bureaucracy, then you're just naive.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@revolrz22 You just can't understand that the T20 could've been built simultaneously with the Sherman, can't you? They wouldn't have had to stop production of anything, they could've (and would have, if they had been allowed to) to built the Sherman while they were also building the T20. And this would've gone on until the Sherman would've been completely replaced. Of course, large numbers of Shermans would've been built nevertheless, but at least the army would've gotten a good tank, suited for
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@revolrz22 the war it was put to fight in. This, of course, would've had the effect of boosting the US industry even more and it would've also positively influenced the US tanks designs after the war, considering that all the tanks built during the Cold War were designed based on the M26, which in turn was a T20 variation. No matter how you look at it, the fact that they blocked the T20 from being adopted only had negative effects, both on the military and the industry.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@revolrz22 The point is, we had the industrial might to produce a heavy tank. It wasn't retooling that was the problem it was doctrine and bureaucracy. The T-26 had a hydrolic drive train and, although hundreds were built, only a handful saw action in Europe. It's astounding to me why this heavy tank was restricted from seeing action. For some reason "military industrial complex" comes to mind suddenly.
AdognamedOp 3 months ago
@AdognamedOp Patton had absolutely zero say in anything having to do with the Pershing. The only source that says otherwise is Death Traps, which is a book that gets its dates, names, battles, and numbers almost unanimously wrong. If anything, Patton opposed the TD doctrine from the start, stating the logical evolution of the TD would be a tank, anyway.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 Patton had almost everything to say on not replacing the Sherman with the T20 tanks. He was one of the main reasons for which the T20 was not adopted. And that's not just what some book says, that's the truth. And BTW, the Sherman really was a death trap, when was confronting the German tanks. Soldiers don't give such nicknames to weapons systems for nothing. As for the Pershing, it was adopted after the Battle of the Bulge, a battle that made the need for heavy tanks very obvious.
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 You appear to live in a fantasy world where factories have infinite internal volume and can wish manufacturing tools in place with a snap of the site managers' fingers. Your logic cannot be seriously argued, because it cannot be taken seriously.
Give proof that Patton had anything to do with the procurement of tanks. Also, the often quoted nickname "Ronson" fails to appear in any U.S. wartime manuscript. The lack of evidence for your claims seems to be a common theme in your posts.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 If you think that a factory is limited to producing just one type of product, then you're naive at least. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't even know anything about the industrial machines used to build certain components of certain machines. And I don't have time to explain all these to you here.
Regarding Patton, go read history. It's widely accepted by the military historians that he, and also other generals, like the commander of the ground forces, opposed
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 A factory producing two types of armored fighting vehicles and a factory producing two different sets of silverware are different matters entirely. You 'don't have time' because you can't. We've seen already that you have the time, because you persist in continuing to argue this. Regarding Patton, it isn't 'widely accepted.' It appears in one, maybe two, books out of hundreds, and the notion is debunked by many more later works.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 No, I don't have time, nor space. Your statement about the factories that can produce "different types of armored vehicles and different types of silverware" just shows that you know nothing about how industry works. You're ignorant and you don't want to learn either. Just like the morons that opposed the Sherman's replacement.
Regarding Patton, name me at least 10 out of those "hundreds of books" and where his role in rejecting the T20 has been "debunked".
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1 Zaloga, Steven J. Armored Thunderbolt
Zaloga, Steven J. Panther vs. Sherman
Zaloga, Steven J. T-34-85 vs. M26 Pershing
Hunnicutt, R. P. Firepower: A History of the American Heavy Tank
These are the ones I personally own and have read. There are many more out there. Now it's your turn: Tell me these supposed weaknesses of the Sherman? And how would the T-23 have improved the situation, considering that the same things killing Shermans would have killed the T-23 just as easily?
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 "Supposed weaknesses"? Every crewman that fought in that tank said it was not good for the war it was fighting in. It was very poorly armored and its gun was a failure in the armored warfare that was taking place in that war. The T23 would've been better protected, as it had sloped armor, it had a better anti-tank gun and overall, it was a more modern design. It could've also been equipped with bigger guns and heavier, better protected versions could've been built. I hope you're not
StiviGun1 3 months ago
@StiviGun1
Not good for the war it was fighting in? Define that, please. Because WWII had very little actual tank jousting.
This 'thin armor' that you claim gave better ballistic tolerances against 75-mm shells than the Panzer IV and the T-34; its closest competitors, so your armor argument means nothing.
So, the T-23 had sloped armor? And the Sherman didn't? Are you seriously telling me the Sherman was not sloped on the glacis plate? Are you blind?
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 Yes, not good for the war it was fighting in. It was poorly armored and its 75 mm gun was less than inadequate against German tanks, like Panther and Tiger. A lot of crewmen died unnecessarily in clashes with these German tanks.
Give me a proof that the Sherman had better protection than the T-34. T-34 had sloped armor, which BTW, the Sherman didn't have. Its armor was not sloped at the angle needed to be called sloped armor. The T20 had such armor though.
Sherman also had other flaws
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 You say it was poorly armored. Again, its glacis had better protection against 75-mm projectiles than the Panzer IV or T-34. You say the T-34 had a sloped glacis, and the Sherman did not have a sloped glacis. This leads me to believe that you are blind, my friend. The formula for effective armor is: effective armor thickness*(1+( (slope multiplier -1)*overmatch factor). Slope multipliers can be found in WO 185/118. Do this for the three tanks and you will see for yourself.
revolrz22 2 months ago
@revolrz22 Look, tell me, what angle was the Sherman's glacis sloped at? Its glacis did not provide double the protection. A plate needs to be sloped at 45 degrees to do that? From what I see, that was not the Sherman's case. But there was one reality that you don't want to see. WW2 was also about an armored warfare and a tank designed specifically for this role was needed. Simple as that.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@revolrz22 like being too tall, which again, was a disadvantage in tanks battle. The T20 was a more modern design, with a lower profile, better protection (because of its sloped armor). Heavier versions with bigger guns could've also been built based on the T20 design. There was absolutely no reason for blocking the T20 production. The only thing that stopped this was the bureaucracy in the AGF.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 The Sherman was tall,andthis was a flaw. Granted. The design could have been improved with the M4A3 model, which adopted a lower engine which could facilitate a lower height. They did not do that because they did not want to retool factories and interrupt production. I also like how you find profile unacceptable on the M4 Sherman, but then you voraciously argue that the M6 - which was gigantic - should have been produced.
revolrz22 2 months ago
@revolrz22 I did not "voraciously" argued the M6 should've been adopted... It was just a thought. And again, you come with that bullshit about retooling the factories. How many times do I have to tell you that's not how things work, in specially during war. Factories can get any kind of tools and workers are trained to work following sketches, in general. They're trained to build anything if you show them a sketch. At least, that's how they were during WW2, when the US industry simply exploded.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@revolrz22 So again, factories' capacity to mass produce another tank, besides the one they were already producing wouldn't have been a problem at all. So stop bringing this argument. And if your books tell you this, that means their authors only try to justify the bureaucracy in the US military so stop reading them. The US industry in WW2 could've done anything.
Regarding the Sherman, the reason why it was tall, was because of how its transmission was placed, not with its engine. The T20 tanks
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@revolrz22 solved this problem by having their transmission placed in the rear (I don't know how else to say it...). So overall, the T20 was a more modern design, with significantly increased protection. Its sloped armor would've offer a protection of 120 mm of RHA at the same weight as the Sherman. It was simply a better, more modern tank, that was denied to the soldiers because of the bureaucracy that existed (which still exists) in the US military.
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 The T-23 also did not have a better gun than the Sherman. Later versions of the Sherman mounted the same 76-mm M1 series guns in the turret borrowed from the T-23.
Those books do not cover the T-20 much. Rather, they discuss the M-26 and why it was not built as soon as it was. You demanded sources that disprove your blind rantings that Patton was an evil mastermind that conspired to get Americans killed by denying them a heavy tank, and I gave them to you.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@revolrz22 The Shermans that were upgunned with that 76 mm gun and turreted with the T20 turret were built in too smaller numbers, again, because of the same bureaucracy that stopped the T20 from being mass produced. So this argument is hogwash.
Regarding the M26, why exactly do those books say it couldn't be built earlier? Many historians say it could've been made ready for the Normandy Invasion. So what argument do those books use? It's not that lack of industrial capacity, I hope...
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 76-mm armed Shermans formed 57% of all tanks produced in the late production run, with a total of 10,703 samples being produced. That's more Panzer IVs than Germany ever even made. To say they were in 'too small of numbers' is silly; entire Soviet Red Guard divisions were armed with the tank.
Those books cite General Leslie McNair as the primary opponent to the M26's production. Not Patton. In fact, Patton was never present at any of the trials concerning the M26.
revolrz22 2 months ago
@revolrz22 10,703 is small for a tank that relied on numbers. The T20 could've been produced in much larger numbers and it would've been a much better design. And when the hell did the soviets use the Sherman? Their T-34 was superior from every point of view.
As for who was responsible for blocking the delivery of a new, better tank, I never emphasized on Patton. I said that the AGF top officials, including the AGF commander. (Leslie McNair). So my point from the beginning was that the T20 was
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 If yoy don't think the Soviets used the T-34, what point is there in continuing? There is pictographic evidence of it, and there are accounts on the internet from tankers who crewed the T-34 and Sherman - and some of them prefered the Sherman. In fact, the Sherman was superior in several aspects. But you don't care, because none of your arguments are based on anything more than your personal emotional crusade.
revolrz22 2 months ago
@revolrz22 I never said I don't believe the soviets used the T-34... I said I don't believe they used the Sherman. And what were those areas the Sherman was superior? It wasn't better protected, that's bullshit. The T-34's sloped armor provided much better protection, since its sloped armor at 45 degrees doubles the protection. It was faster, more mobile, it had a more powerful gun. So in what way was the Sherman better?
StiviGun1 2 months ago
@StiviGun1 You can not believe the Russians used the Sherman all you want, but they did. They acknowledge it, there are pictures, and entire tank corps were outfitted with it. The M4 had superior armor on the front arc, superior fire control, had a turret basket, and better ammunition storage. Your saying that the T-34 had "better armor and firepower" shows that you don't actually care about this topic; you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 Well, present me evidence that the Russians used the Sherman. And also, show me evidence that Sherman's protection was better than the T-34's and that its short, 75 mm gun was more powerful than the T-34's 76,2 mm anti-tank gun. You don't even know what an anti-tank gun is if you say the Sherman's gun was more powerful.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 You can hit google and find pictures of Soviet crews using M4A2 tanks. The Sherman having thicker armor on the front arc is a matter of mathematics, one that you can easily calculate if you know the thickness of each plate, the overmatch value against a given diamiter of shell, and the multiplier for a given slope. I never said the Sherman's guns were superior. In fact, they were very much on par in terms of armor penetration. It did, however, have superior fire control.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 Where are those "entire units" that you say were equipped with the Sherman? This is bullshit. The Russians used the T-34, which is universally accepted by all experts to have been superior to the Sherman. Only you say otherwise. They may have used the Sherman at the very beginnings of the war, but after the T-34 started to be mass produced, there were no Shermans left in the Russian army. The T-34's protection was superior because of its sloped armor, that's a fact. Its gun
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 "Universally accepted by all experts" meaning "I watched the history channel and they said so, so I believe it without having any literary sources presented to me and having none to back up my claim." What units were equipped with the M4 is information which is readily available on the internet. The fact that you have not looked for yourself indicates that you don't care about the subject as much as you think you do.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 Like I said, the red army's main tank was the T-34. After the T-34 started being mass produced, the Shermans were no longer used by the Russians. The T-34 was better from all points of view, including frontal protection, as I saw someone correcting you a day ago. You speak about "literary sources", but everything you've said is false. Like the statement that the Sherman had a glacis front plate. Your statements on the US industrial capacity during WW2 also show how well
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 All of the data I have presented here is easily receivable on the internet. Youtube will not permit me to post links, so it falls to you to do the research. As for pictures of soviet Shermans, try going to google and typing "Soviet Sherman" in a picture search. You will even find ones of Shermans and T-34s right next to one another. The T-34 glacis plate was not thicker. Go look for yourself. Again, information is readily available. Your claims aren't based on knowledge.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 And what exactly is that data? You haven't presented any. I saw a guy correcting you who said that the T-34's plate glacis was stronger. He even said that the T-34's armor got thicker as the war progressed and the the armored warfare was evolving. He worked in a museum that had both the Sherman and the T-34, so I'm gonna believe him instead of you. You only proved to be a biased guy with a curious ambition to defend the decision to not replace the Sherman.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 He could have said whatever he wanted. The turret armor of the T-34 changed, obviously, when a new turret was added. However, the hull plating did not change. I gave you websites to look this stuff up in (since you said books were invalid since you could not access them.) Youtube will not allow me to post direct links. It is up to you to go to the URLs I gave you and look.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 He was talking about the glacis plates, not the turrets. Yes, the T-34's armor was thickened according to the changes in armored warfare during that war. That's something you didn't do, which cost you a lot of your soldiers' lives.
Regarding those URLs, it's simple. Post them on my profile. It's very easy. The reason why you don't do this, is because you have nothing. You never posted any links, so stop lying.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 T-34s glacis armor was never thickened. That's fact. I have given you plenty of sources to the contrary, you just refuse to look at them. Prove that the T-34s glacis was thickened if it's so obvious. Protip: You can't, because no reputable source says that. Because it's not true. You give no sources, but you demand sources and then ignore that I post them. But very well, I will PM you sources for all my statements so that you can post here that I never did.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 Stop lying. Why are you doing this? You never sent me anything. You realize how pathetic you are lying like this for some bullshit reason? Why the fuck are you so desperate about this Sherman things? You haven't sent me anything, so stop lying.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@revolrz22 Regarding the Shermans the soviets used. Like I said, they probably used at the very beginning of the war, when the T-34 did not reach the sufficient numbers. But after the T-34's numbers started to grow, the soviets probably used the Sherman for very insignificant battles and campaigns. But just because the soviets made use of everything they could during wartime, doesn't mean the Sherman was better than he T-34 or even that the Sherman was a suited tank to fight WW2.
StiviGun1 1 month ago
@StiviGun1 The Sherman was being used by Russia from the first chance they got to get them to the very end. Again, your argument in this regard is nothing more than "Um, probably." Mine is based on pictorial evidence, personal accounts, and official documents from the Russians themselves. Opinions of the Sherman were mixed in Russia; with some crews, like those of Dmitri Loza (author of a book, Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks) overall preferring it over the T-34.
revolrz22 1 month ago
@revolrz22 They were used in very small numbers and only because it was. They weren't just gonna ditch them just because they had something better after that. They had to use everything they had in that war. That's why they continued using the Sherman even after the T-34 started being mass produced.
BTW, the reason why some Russian soldiers preferred the Sherman might have been because it offered a better comfort for the crew, not because it was more effective in combat.
StiviGun1 1 month ago