WWII was a war of production, and the Germans simply couldn't produce enough tanks to combat the sheer amount the Allies were throwing at them. M36 Slugger/Jackson's, or M26 Pershing's were brought into the fight, the Tiger soon became less and less effective. Although the King Tiger was much superior to anything the Allies had created, except maybe the IS-3.
For the most part all wars are wars of production. except perhaps nuclear war. unless I'm mistaken The Panther tank is considered the best all round tank of WWII. Air Power however was the best tank killer.
one on one the sherman has no chance, but there were more shermans so that is how they beat the german tiger tanks, but if there was a tiger 2 aka king tiger the americans would need either antitank guns or tank destroyers because a shermans gun fails at point blank against a tiger 2
and the americans had more fule and cheaper designes unlike the germans who had very big and more powerful tanks but not enough resoursces to maintain them
@Masterluggi97 Hell Jagdpanther's practically a balanced beast! Personally I'd say its better than the Panther - only drawback was it was abit weightier and it sacrificed a turret for a bigger gun but compared to the Tiger variants you noticed the Panther retained similar weight to a Panther YET the Tiger AFV's got bigger and bigger - like 70 tonne behemoths like the Jagdtiger and the Tiger Ausf B :(
well OK Sherman had big problems but its critics should recall some points: USA had to mass produce tanks for themselves and their non Russian allies and do so fast and then ship em all over the globe--Germany couldn't even come close to that accomplishment....Also Sherman was well suited for Pacific war.
@dunavidrava no...my point was USA had obligations way beyond Germany's--USA had lots of allies to supply, had to supply at least 2 global theaters, had to ship them across 2 oceans, etc. Germany faced none of those issues but USA had to take them into account. Hitler didnt have to ship Tiger over an ocean and then over a continent you know.
@dunavidrava I might add Rommel would disagree with you. After Kaserine and he and his staff were inspecting the damage to USA equipment and his staff was laughing it up about the poor quality of USA equipment Rommel said "But look how much of it there is"--He knew that in a war of attrition with USA, Germany would lose--USA could outproduce and out transport Germany no matter how superior the Tiger was and no matter how good their generals were.
@555paint yea,but germany had to fight on many fronts,germany didn't had enough resources.. just look at the king tiger.. no tank could match it.. on one occasion it destroyed 39 russian tanks on the eastern front
@dunavidrava well far be it from me to say that USA had a better tank--of course Germany produced probably the best of the war but how many could they even get into production? Anyways, I had a history prof who argued USA Army had such inferior equipment in general because in the run up to WWII, FDR was partial to the Navy and to some degree air power. Land forces meant little to him and thus went to the bottom of the list of priorities. Sounded right to me.
@dunavidrava But anyways Rommel had a point when he cut his staff short--USA equipment was the greatest but there was a hellva a lot more of it than Germany could ever hope to produce...in a war of attrition Germany always loses and USA always wins war of attrition...in fact that is USA's traditional strategy.
@555paint But imagine if the USA had actually taken the time to design a decent tank? Or even taken a little bit of British Engineering, In Britain they had begun fitting the Sherman with 17 pounder guns, which could actually deal some damage to german tanks. The Americans refused to use the gun or even manufacture it because it wasn't American.
It was good in the pacific, mainly because the Japanese tanks were pretty poor.
@gotsda well i agree sherman worked out better in pacific because its competition was even worse. Both USA and Japan didnt put much preparation into their land forces--all of it went to the Navies. In general USA didnt prepare the Army very well in the years running up the war...unlike the Navy
@gotsda far as I know there a couple of vehicles USA made that everyone liked even if hate the tanks--the Willy Jeeps was loved by just about everyone on all sides....the russians loved the 2.5 truck as well--couldnt get enough of em.
@555paint True that, mass production was America's ace really, I think nearly 50'000 shermans were built in total, compared to the 1000 or so Tigers. No competition really.
@gotsda wow 50k--i knew it was a lot but not that much...i know USA built nearly a million Willy Jeeps in WWII--everyone loved those including the Germans.
@555paint I think that was up until 1950, but production would have dropped massively after Japan had surrendered. The amount given to Americas allies was probably close to half aswell, and they were free.
Should look at the amount of other things they had built, somthing close to 15'000 mustangs I think.
@gotsda looked on wikipedia and yes as you say it was about 50k through 1950. I was also surprised that it was still in use in combat as late 1973 Oct War in Mid East. When I was in Egypt a few years ago they had a few in their military museum--in fact just about every military museum I have ever visited has at least one so not hard to believe so many were produced and widely distributed
@555paint Shermans indeed were upgraded by the Israeli's into the M50 and the M51 Super Sherman - with new engines, better guns (up to 105mm or a higher velocity 76mm - better than the M1 76mm in WWII) and slight armor upgrades :) Its indeed not surprising to have seen SHermans - it is a prolific tank afterall though I myself haven't sen one up close yet :( I've only seen 2 Centurions - and I must say the tracks and armor are solid as hell!
@HeirofGojira91 wow-- you really know your tanks! thanks for the info. I have seen Shermans at several military museums including as I said the Egyptian one in Cairo--maybe it was captured from IDF however I have not seen seen the Grant tank or Lee.
@555paint Well try reading Tanks of the World - a small book but gives you useful basic info on tanks including the little SHerman :) I myself personally of all Sherman variants I like the 76mm M4A3E8 HVSS Sherman Easy 8 as well as the famous ad hoc design the classic Sherman M4A4 Mayfly Hybrid 1c with the powerful QF 17pdr gun which was one of a few Allied Shermans that could have a chance of knocking German heavies :)
@HeirofGojira91 I had a book a few years ago that was by the chief historian of the USA Army ordinance museum and he evaluated USA hardware from WWII.
@HeirofGojira91 But I gave that book away and all I recall is that this historian thought the .45 caliber semi auto was too much fire power and a waster of ammo. for general use in the USA Army. As too IDF I am not too surprised that they used sherman etc at end of WWII--their war of independence, I was a little more surprised that still in use in 73 war when I assumed the Egypitans had current russian tanks. Of course, I also assumed IDF put their resources into air power.
@555paint 0.45 APC?! The M1 Garand alone during WWII was realized to have some glaring weaknesses not to similar to the Gewehr 41; not of least of which early versions had gas piston problems, rifle being unwieldy and difficulty reloading. However it was also the fact the M1 Garands 0.30-06 was just too damned powerful for a semi-auto of its cartridge so they tried to reduce the round but also increase the clip rounds - this was from the T-20 tests to the M14 rifle AR variants...
@555paint And pretty much as the story goes the M14 filled the gap between the M1 Garand and post WWII AR variants - at least until the M16 kicked in. Gmme the ol' M14 over the M1 Garand or the M16 any day - while the M14 might lack the punch of an M1 Garand or the ROF/clip of the M16 the M14 carries more rounds than an M1 Garand and is more durable than the M16 - and above all does more damage, range, accuracy than the M16 :)
@555paint Also - it is interesting the Israeli's at the end of WWII they really had to make do with whatever armor they got for thier defence forces; that stock came from some Lend LEash Shermans and French tanks - yet today they have quite a respectable armored force - the Merkarva's in particular have a good gun, good ergonomics and unique armor - along with captured Egyptian and Syrian armor - particularly T-54/T-55 MBT's which they upgraded the armor, gun and engine! :D
@gotsda Speer also had a few nice things to say about the Sherman--speed for one was greater than heavily armed German tanks and ability to climb was superior.
@canon21100 True.. But the Allied would have had failed in their D-day landing had Hitler not blundered by screwing up the defense of French coasts. Rommel could have had repelled any Allied assaults had he been given full command..
Also, Germany had the capability to dominate the skies.. It's just that they were too low in terms of supplies and that they had too many enemies, thus vastly outnumbered and outequipped in every aspects
And yes the Soviets were powerful but I believe that, granted sufficient resources and manpower, Germany could have won the war eventually, had it not been the shortages of supplies and the series of blunders on behalf of Hitler. He was an absolute idiot, though we should thank him for being so since that's why the German might fell..
As to other infos, I believe most of you would know well enough so I didn''t add
smaller, especially in terms of the width, than the real tiger I know of. As a hobby modeler, I've had had many chances to closely observe relative sizes of tanks.
And I read that Tiger's vertical armors are in fact due to Hitler's distaste of the tank resembling Soviet T34s.. Had it not been Hitler, I believe the Tigers would have been a lot stronger and Germany would have had a sort of KonigsTiger from the start..
@Th3R3taliator The Tiger I's vertical armor however was still durable as hell - the Brinell Hardness was 250-290 by WWII material standards thats really durable and solid - which meant it wasn't just 100mm thick but it also was nominally thicker than you think - and it was SLIGHTLY -veryr slightly sloped at 9-10 deg so that really gives you 102mm armor of thickness. Because its standards of manufacturing were high the Tiger I could usually survive good punishment
@Th3R3taliator And plus the Tiger I's armor as we know it is RHA - rolled homogenous armor of Nickel-Steel alloy - unlike say the Soviets which had cast armor the RHA of the Tiger I was better despite by the war's late stages Germans were struggling to get the raw materials they needed particularly metals to reinforce thier tank armor but it was still good. There is a photo of a Tiger I captured by the British and they fired dozens of AT/Tank shells onto it; most of the shells didn't penetrate
@Th3R3taliator Yes I noticed it was quite narrow; I have a 1/72 JS-2 obr 44 model and I compared it - its not suprising the JS-2 itself is actually a small tank compared to the German heavies; the hull is longer yes but it is lower and it is also narrower in width than the Tiger or the Panther - amazing the Soviets were able to make a compact design though. And also as you know the Tiger I's side armor whilse less vulnerable was still actually hard to penetrate by basic 75mm or 76mm guns
@Th3R3taliator hmm the Tiger's Turret also looks somewhat narrow - from what I know of pretty much only Tiger 131 is the only Tiger that still functions in the world and the remaining 5 are either as monuments or not in running condition - it is likely this Tiger I is a dummy type model (I might be wrong). And I hope the armor thing I mentioned made some sense (not that I'm criticising your points or anything).
The Sherman was a poor Tank killer but making it was a better strategy for the Allies, and if the Sherman came standard with the 17 pounder on the Firefly it would have been a very different war. The Tiger and King Tiger were impressive but for the 2000-2500 Tigers built, they could have built around 6000 MK4's or 4000 Panthers and still had a good kill rate. The day of the Tiger killing 5/1 would have been numbered if the war went into 46 with the arrival of Centurions and the Pershing.
By the Allies the narrator clearly excludes the Russians who possessed a great history of tank technology. That omission is unfair to the Russians who endured so much in the war. Perhaps the western Allies should have just copied the T-34.
@taywil64A russian technology was good.. but the king tiger was far superior than any other tank during ww2.. the allies put their hope in numbers,germans in quality
@TwilightXSpark Well during the pre-war years when Germany was rearming I read a short story of Hitler gaping in awe at his Panzers (note these wouldn't have been the Panzer IV Ausf H nor the Panther or Tiger as they didn't see service yet!) and he was said to have cried like a child wanting a toy 'THATS WHAT I WANT - TANKS! TANKS!'
@TwilightXSpark If you read Seig Heil! There is a short article on what Hitler's 50th b'day was like - there is a photo of him smiling happily at one of his personal gifts from Dr Ferdinand Porsche - a scale model of the Buggy Beetle car - and with plenty of wishes from his fellow Nazi's and there is a photo of a b'day cake for Hitler decorated in swastika candles :S - sounds abit scary...
why was that shot on the armor point blank range? despite beng able to pierce through anyway at least they coodve shown that despite the sherman having much more slanted armour, it still wasn' enough the get enough bounces to survive many hits, while the tiger had much less slanted armour and would made less bounces but no penetratiions
It's impossible this tank killed a tiger. In the Ardennen - Offensive there was a "match" between a tiger and a sherman. the tiger hided behind a hedge just the cannon ranging out of it. the sherman drew up and fired from about 15 meters, constantly shooting about 10-15 rounds without damaging the tiger. the tiger one-shootet it then.
@Ruslan260508: The Sherman wasn't designed to fight other Tanks, but even the small Shermans killed some Panthers & Tigers, so.. don't underestimate them! In Korea they have beaten the T-34.
there is nothing more pathetic than interpreting knowlege from games into the public...for all those kids who think they know something becuse they played shits like CoD...shut the fuck up!!!
This is a pretty silly comparison. Heavy anti-tank tank v general purpose medium tank. Just because the Americans didn't really have a heavy doesn't mean they have to wheel out the old, bigger, better gun, better armoured, Tiger wins crap over and over. Comparing the Tiger to the T-34 is pretty stupid as well because there were many Russian heavies which are pretty good comparisons to the Tiger.
@moomoo1337 T34 was a tiger killer buddy its 85mm cannon opened tigers like a can at distance of 1000m with ease. With its sloped armor which was double armor due to its degree of slope and wide tracks with christie suspension T34 was superior. Then there was IS3 soviet heavy tank, but they were not so numerous like T34. They were made to kill King Tigers and Maus which never came to be.
When later tested against German armor, it was found that the tank gun developed from the 85-mm AA gun lacked the power of its predecessor and a new antitank gun was made, the 122-mm gun from wikipedia is3 never saw a battle IS saw a battle but only in the battle for berlin
@Ouija121085 T34 is a medium usually with a 76mm gun. T34-85 wasn't available until 1944 and that gun was not as powerful as you believe. T34 was more comparable to a Panther as it inspired the German tank. KV series or early IS are comparable to the Tiger.
Narrator: but nobody told the American crews about the tiger! (lol,every german tank/veichle was a threat to sherman.Even puma could destroy a sherman.
this is same comparison if you compared a Porsche with a Model T ford. Tiger was generations in front of sherman in every way. Sherman could shoot 5-6 shells at Tiger which would simply bounce off. Not until in one engagement german commander with his Tiger destroyed 17 shermans in a column in france that it was clear that major design upgrade was neeaded. Sherman Firefly with british cannon could engage german tanks tho.
@Ouija121085 Except for two things. The Tiger was an open country tank. It was near useless in the small towns of Europe and had a glaring vulnerability; The gas tank, in the rear, had only two inches of armor, so all a Sherman had to do, if it could, was hit it in the ass.No one but a moron would put a Sherman up against a Tiger, of course.
@skudaarkaat1 and how would you come behind it? Germans were not stupid they knew how to flank also. Furthermore there is really no match up between those two its like putting a mike tyson in a ring with a prepubescent 12 years old.
@Ouija121085 If the Germans were so smart, though, why did they lose the war. And there are rusted out hulks of Tigers and Panthers all over Europe, and something blew them up, and many times, it was a Sherman. A Sherman was faster and much more maneuverable than the sluggish Tiger, plus, as I mentioned above, the fuel tank was not only very vulnerable but had a tendency to leak as well, so just getting it to burn could prove fatal.
@skudaarkaat1 Germans lost the war because they attacked Russia. They made the fatal mistake of attacking Russia which is an unconquerable country, they over exteneded their recources and were later beaten by Red army all the way to Berlin. Sure they were not indestructible, but their technology at the time was at forefront in the world. As it tends to be today too. Sherman was not able to destroy a tiger in an engagement. Sherman Firefly was able to disable it but they were rare.
@Ouija121085 The Sherman was quite capable of killing a Tiger. The M3 gun could penetrate the hull sides and rear of the Tiger at ranges out to 1000m. The M1A2 gun could penetrate the turret and hull sides and rear out to 1000m. The QF 17 pdr was capable of penetrating all armor inside of 1000m. In reality, these had to be perfect shots which are rare, but it was possible and did happen. The Panther glasis was the hardest to penetrate.
@0341MarineInfantry Maybe on paper... in reality sherman could not and was never a match for a tiger. If tiger and sherman ever met in a duel tiger wins hands down even if sherman fires first. There was an incident where a single Tiger killed 17 sherman tanks in france after D-day landing as allies were forcing armor forward. This single tiger stopped allied advance dead on! and this is not the first time it did this.
@Ouija121085 there was a variety of this type of incident happening. his name was Will Frey from Das Reich, Ernst Barkmann took on 15 shermans in a panther.
The Tiger 1s frontal glacis .. even tho vertical offered more protection than the Panther`s 80mm sloaped glacis mate . Tiger 1s armour was a rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded and interlocked ,which gave a Brinell hardness indicator of 280 , which was the best by ww2 standards of any tank on the battlefield . Same thickness of Tiger 1 armour gave 15-20% more protection than allied armour and over 30-35% contemporary soviet armour .
@Cosmin1511 Hello again! But the Panther had 80mm at 55 deg so thats 80/cos55 = 140mm approx of LOS thickness - wouldn't it be better than the Tiger I in deflecting shots? But again I also hear the Tiger I on the other hand had excellent Brinell Hardness and it was at 280 or so while the Panthers was more brittle hence much higher - unless it relates to Brinell Hadness and quality of manufacture which is why the Tiger I is so damned difficult to destroy frontally :)
It might be mate. Its true that LOS thickness is greater than effective thickness BUT the Panthers glacis was only 80mm thick, and far more brittle than the Tiger`s 100mm front glacis.In this case the T/D coeficient comes into play again.Remeber that on the E front the panther had to cope with 85,100,122,152mm guns etc .
At certain conditions of shot overmatching plate, the cosine rule is broken and the plate resists less well than the simple cosine relationship would predict
@Cosmin1511 Yes - I recall in a discussion with you last year you mentioned this and yes naturally we are aware of the rule of the caliber if it can overmatch the plate (and depending on angle of impact and shot the crew made first) there is a good chance of penetrating the plate on the T/D - and I have no doubts even if the 122mm or the ZVEROBOY's huge 152mm spamming shells struck a Panther didn't exactly penetrate - it could still seriously spall the glacis or cause concussive damage
@Cosmin1511 Have you read an article in 2006 about a recovered Panther from a lake near Poland or so? There is the photo of the Panther recovered from a lake; a 122mm shell from a JS-2 tank punch through the Panther's mantlet (not glacis) and it was such it even tore through the back armor! According to our colleage Dreachon this would have most likely to have occured at a range of less than 1200 metres as he noted JS-2 tanks rarely engaged shot duels at ranges beyond that...
Theres a whole article explaining the all the relatonships and how all the elements come together . Ill msg it 2 u for a good reading since its too large to post here .
@JLK9192 Woher willst du wissen, dass ich meine Aussagen von Wikipedia beziehe? Woher willst du wissen , dass ich nicht Bücher besitze? Dass ich Dokus schaue? Das ich Archieve und Seiten durchforste , die Dinge auf einer statistischen Weise darlegen? Geh wieder zurück und schau deine Dick-Figures und Minecraft Videos. Ist definitiv mehr dein Niveau.
@MadGuyMunich genau das gleiche könnte ich auch sagen... du bezeichnest ein paar millionen Menschen als Niveaulos nur weil sie Minecraft spielen und Dick figures videos schauen? Was ist dann bitte dein Niveau? Andere als Kiddies bezeichnen weil sie CoD oder World Of Tanks spielen?Klar gibt es da Kiddies die denken sie wären die Pros aber es ist halt scheisse das alle unter 14 meistens sofort als Kiddies abgestempelt werden... lasst doch auch den Kleineren den Spaß
@JLK9192 Nein. Aber verdient hast du es ja, weil du einfach so mal meinst andere als "noob" bezeichnen zu müssen, ohne zu wissen woher sie ihre infos beziehen. Es nervt, wenn sich ungebildete vorpubertierte in Sachen einmischen von denen sie keine Ahnung haben. Die Sollen ruhig WOT spielen, und hier nicht die ganzen Videos mit ihrem "0815"-Wissen zuspammen. Sag bloß es spielen nicht nur 14 Jährige Cod, bzw Wot? Da fall ich ja aus Allen Wolken! *ironie*
I have some news for these morons doing this documentary, the Tiger tank turret could turn faster than the Sherman could out maneuver it and shoot it in the Back, the Tiger could also neutral steer or pivot on the spot as well, meaning the entire tank could face the Sherman frontally in a matter of seconds, the Sherman had no chance! Also, the Tiger tank had a kill ratio of 5.7 to 1 in the entire WW2 period from 1942-45, therefore this documentary is a total fail, and propaganda, FACT.
At least they mention the fact that the Sherman was designed as an infantry support and exploitation vehicle, not as a tank-fighting slugger. It's design, capabilities, and intended use reflected this philosophy. The M4 Series was as fundamentally mismatched against the Tiger as was the PzIV C through F was against the T-34. The comparison is moot.
This is lost on most who believe the M4 series was "crappy".
@MrSkar87 well at least they got the chassis right, it looks like a real tiger tank except for the wheels. still, the tiger's are much bigger than the sherman's so that doesn't change the statement i had put up.
@MrSkar87 cos theres none left fucktard plus thats put on where its suppost to be shooting they wouldnt be shooting fantasticly kept shermans would they?
@icanmyshoetie ok thanks for pointing out the obvious.....i don't really need any more info about these tanks, i had already read about them from actual books i bought, and i saw them in real life. really, don't say anything else.
But US really had the most shitty tanks in WW2. Sherman was a crap compared to medium Pz3 and 4 or T-34. the only american tank which was ok was Pershing. It's a heavy one, but also loses to King Tiger or IS-2, but still better than any medium one.
@Scoutrussp7 Play enough video games? all the tanks you mentioned, in fact all the tanks of ww2 were dwarfed by the tiger, and the king tiger is called a Tiger II, something tells me you've played R.U.S.E or Company of Heros in the past.
and damn it first call of duty came around and everyone thinks there weapon experts, and now world of tanks is here and everyone thinks there fuckin tank experts...
@Toni112007 They made it like that so it could be produced quicker and be transported by boat easier and obviously it turned out to be a better tactic. So yes it was a poorer tank but in the end its numbers made up for that and armies were more mobile, and in the end proved better in supporting an entire army then just armoured division. German tanks were larger yes but slowed down the advance of the total army.
@paintballKid545 slowed down the advance of the total army? have you not heard the term blitzkrieg? and you cant even compare the tiger to the sherman because its like comparing a volvo to a hummer, for a long time shermans werent even able to destroy a tiger because there guns were too small tigers armor was too thick...stick to paintball please
@spetsnaz892 And guess what dumbass, tiger tanks were used much less in blitzkrieg tactics. Panthers were the main armour used. And thats not even the point. We can compare them because there are alot more factors then armor thickness and turret size. Two of them being mobility and production rateing. Tiger gets guns and armor, Sherman gets mobility and production. They both have characteristics they are both tanks. They can be compared. Stop thinking your an expert cause your not!
@paintballKid545 no its not a comparison, because you take 5 shermans and 1 tiger and its a fair fight, Tigers were used in blitzkriegs, get your facts straight, panthers are large tanks too....so far you got nothing..
@spetsnaz892 are you aware that the US decided to build large numbers of smaller, less armored tanks for the simple reason they had to be transported across the Atlantic Ocean. Say what you want about how great German tanks were, the Shermans did their job, they helped win the war. There were 55,500 shermans made during 1942-1943 as opposed to 2700 tiger 1's and 2's. When did i even say 5-1 NEVER! I said "Tiger Firepower and armor Sherman mobility and production. Your reading suck
@spetsnaz892 Tigers were not used in blitzkriegs but in a defensive war. Blitzkriegs are best fought by light tanks, which can run deep into enemy territory. Even today, when you read about end of XXc... soviet Howitzer 2S1 122mm "Гвоздика" Amphibious, light armor, fast, big diesel tank - because its purpose is aggressive and not defensive.
German Tanks can and did take out anything the Americans or England had... (Such a pitty!)
HyperFoxTails 23 hours ago
a better comparison would be the Pershing vs the Tiger
Bamchucknorris 1 day ago
or the koenigs tiger vs the pershing
rommelspain 20 hours ago
it would be nice if the tiger had some slopes and not just a big box
sixonesixfiv 1 day ago
@sixonesixfiv the Tiger B had just that
korsager 18 hours ago
Comment removed
sixonesixfiv 1 day ago
WWII was a war of production, and the Germans simply couldn't produce enough tanks to combat the sheer amount the Allies were throwing at them. M36 Slugger/Jackson's, or M26 Pershing's were brought into the fight, the Tiger soon became less and less effective. Although the King Tiger was much superior to anything the Allies had created, except maybe the IS-3.
wewillrcku 2 days ago
@wewillrcku
For the most part all wars are wars of production. except perhaps nuclear war. unless I'm mistaken The Panther tank is considered the best all round tank of WWII. Air Power however was the best tank killer.
marmaladekamikaze 2 days ago
ooops just got up to 5.00, L88 it is
SnottyAust 3 days ago
Its cannon was very accurate and had a long range. L88 cannon i think
SnottyAust 3 days ago
Since it is that hitler perdio the war if it was in those days a superpower europear for that??
MrJurock16 4 days ago
cool video....but i dont remember there ever being a time when there was a question about which was superior.Shermans were a joke in comparison.
stevekon11 4 days ago
tanks aren't even comparable, no crap the tiger is bigger, derr... try someting at least better like the panzer 4
Tankband01 4 days ago
on the area where in ww2 the tigers were build is now the kassel university, where i studied several years ago...
3lumi 5 days ago
i lol when i saw him in those goggles.
belboyfan 6 days ago
They never even drove the Tiger did they? Just moved it around?
Vriespop 6 days ago
one on one the sherman has no chance, but there were more shermans so that is how they beat the german tiger tanks, but if there was a tiger 2 aka king tiger the americans would need either antitank guns or tank destroyers because a shermans gun fails at point blank against a tiger 2
and the americans had more fule and cheaper designes unlike the germans who had very big and more powerful tanks but not enough resoursces to maintain them
chubbystickgrenade35 6 days ago
@TwilightXSpark Thats right... And jagdpanther
Masterluggi97 1 week ago
@Masterluggi97 Hell Jagdpanther's practically a balanced beast! Personally I'd say its better than the Panther - only drawback was it was abit weightier and it sacrificed a turret for a bigger gun but compared to the Tiger variants you noticed the Panther retained similar weight to a Panther YET the Tiger AFV's got bigger and bigger - like 70 tonne behemoths like the Jagdtiger and the Tiger Ausf B :(
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
Oh my gosh, is it not obvious? look at the size of the Tiger compared to the Sherman lol...
CarlosPringle 1 week ago
The US had the Pershing Tank in WWII as well which was superior to the Tiger.
njdevil281 1 week ago
well OK Sherman had big problems but its critics should recall some points: USA had to mass produce tanks for themselves and their non Russian allies and do so fast and then ship em all over the globe--Germany couldn't even come close to that accomplishment....Also Sherman was well suited for Pacific war.
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint who cares about how many were built.. better one strong tank,then 5 cheap shitty tanks
dunavidrava 1 week ago
@dunavidrava no...my point was USA had obligations way beyond Germany's--USA had lots of allies to supply, had to supply at least 2 global theaters, had to ship them across 2 oceans, etc. Germany faced none of those issues but USA had to take them into account. Hitler didnt have to ship Tiger over an ocean and then over a continent you know.
555paint 1 week ago
@dunavidrava I might add Rommel would disagree with you. After Kaserine and he and his staff were inspecting the damage to USA equipment and his staff was laughing it up about the poor quality of USA equipment Rommel said "But look how much of it there is"--He knew that in a war of attrition with USA, Germany would lose--USA could outproduce and out transport Germany no matter how superior the Tiger was and no matter how good their generals were.
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint yea,but germany had to fight on many fronts,germany didn't had enough resources.. just look at the king tiger.. no tank could match it.. on one occasion it destroyed 39 russian tanks on the eastern front
dunavidrava 1 week ago
@dunavidrava well far be it from me to say that USA had a better tank--of course Germany produced probably the best of the war but how many could they even get into production? Anyways, I had a history prof who argued USA Army had such inferior equipment in general because in the run up to WWII, FDR was partial to the Navy and to some degree air power. Land forces meant little to him and thus went to the bottom of the list of priorities. Sounded right to me.
555paint 1 week ago
@dunavidrava But anyways Rommel had a point when he cut his staff short--USA equipment was the greatest but there was a hellva a lot more of it than Germany could ever hope to produce...in a war of attrition Germany always loses and USA always wins war of attrition...in fact that is USA's traditional strategy.
555paint 1 week ago
@dunavidrava sorry I mean to say USA Army equipment was NOT the greatest (with some notable exceptions)
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint But imagine if the USA had actually taken the time to design a decent tank? Or even taken a little bit of British Engineering, In Britain they had begun fitting the Sherman with 17 pounder guns, which could actually deal some damage to german tanks. The Americans refused to use the gun or even manufacture it because it wasn't American.
It was good in the pacific, mainly because the Japanese tanks were pretty poor.
gotsda 1 week ago
@gotsda well i agree sherman worked out better in pacific because its competition was even worse. Both USA and Japan didnt put much preparation into their land forces--all of it went to the Navies. In general USA didnt prepare the Army very well in the years running up the war...unlike the Navy
555paint 1 week ago
@gotsda far as I know there a couple of vehicles USA made that everyone liked even if hate the tanks--the Willy Jeeps was loved by just about everyone on all sides....the russians loved the 2.5 truck as well--couldnt get enough of em.
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint True that, mass production was America's ace really, I think nearly 50'000 shermans were built in total, compared to the 1000 or so Tigers. No competition really.
gotsda 1 week ago
@gotsda wow 50k--i knew it was a lot but not that much...i know USA built nearly a million Willy Jeeps in WWII--everyone loved those including the Germans.
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint I think that was up until 1950, but production would have dropped massively after Japan had surrendered. The amount given to Americas allies was probably close to half aswell, and they were free.
Should look at the amount of other things they had built, somthing close to 15'000 mustangs I think.
gotsda 1 week ago
@gotsda looked on wikipedia and yes as you say it was about 50k through 1950. I was also surprised that it was still in use in combat as late 1973 Oct War in Mid East. When I was in Egypt a few years ago they had a few in their military museum--in fact just about every military museum I have ever visited has at least one so not hard to believe so many were produced and widely distributed
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint Shermans indeed were upgraded by the Israeli's into the M50 and the M51 Super Sherman - with new engines, better guns (up to 105mm or a higher velocity 76mm - better than the M1 76mm in WWII) and slight armor upgrades :) Its indeed not surprising to have seen SHermans - it is a prolific tank afterall though I myself haven't sen one up close yet :( I've only seen 2 Centurions - and I must say the tracks and armor are solid as hell!
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 wow-- you really know your tanks! thanks for the info. I have seen Shermans at several military museums including as I said the Egyptian one in Cairo--maybe it was captured from IDF however I have not seen seen the Grant tank or Lee.
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint Well try reading Tanks of the World - a small book but gives you useful basic info on tanks including the little SHerman :) I myself personally of all Sherman variants I like the 76mm M4A3E8 HVSS Sherman Easy 8 as well as the famous ad hoc design the classic Sherman M4A4 Mayfly Hybrid 1c with the powerful QF 17pdr gun which was one of a few Allied Shermans that could have a chance of knocking German heavies :)
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 I had a book a few years ago that was by the chief historian of the USA Army ordinance museum and he evaluated USA hardware from WWII.
555paint 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91 But I gave that book away and all I recall is that this historian thought the .45 caliber semi auto was too much fire power and a waster of ammo. for general use in the USA Army. As too IDF I am not too surprised that they used sherman etc at end of WWII--their war of independence, I was a little more surprised that still in use in 73 war when I assumed the Egypitans had current russian tanks. Of course, I also assumed IDF put their resources into air power.
555paint 1 week ago
@555paint 0.45 APC?! The M1 Garand alone during WWII was realized to have some glaring weaknesses not to similar to the Gewehr 41; not of least of which early versions had gas piston problems, rifle being unwieldy and difficulty reloading. However it was also the fact the M1 Garands 0.30-06 was just too damned powerful for a semi-auto of its cartridge so they tried to reduce the round but also increase the clip rounds - this was from the T-20 tests to the M14 rifle AR variants...
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@555paint And pretty much as the story goes the M14 filled the gap between the M1 Garand and post WWII AR variants - at least until the M16 kicked in. Gmme the ol' M14 over the M1 Garand or the M16 any day - while the M14 might lack the punch of an M1 Garand or the ROF/clip of the M16 the M14 carries more rounds than an M1 Garand and is more durable than the M16 - and above all does more damage, range, accuracy than the M16 :)
HeirofGojira91 6 days ago
@555paint Also - it is interesting the Israeli's at the end of WWII they really had to make do with whatever armor they got for thier defence forces; that stock came from some Lend LEash Shermans and French tanks - yet today they have quite a respectable armored force - the Merkarva's in particular have a good gun, good ergonomics and unique armor - along with captured Egyptian and Syrian armor - particularly T-54/T-55 MBT's which they upgraded the armor, gun and engine! :D
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@gotsda Speer also had a few nice things to say about the Sherman--speed for one was greater than heavily armed German tanks and ability to climb was superior.
555paint 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A Tiger could take 4 shermans. the problem was that the americans had 5!
MsTorque91 1 week ago
Comment removed
MsTorque91 1 week ago
sherman is for kids, for fun :) tiger is tank
11SNA 1 week ago 2
Comment removed
MrThePan099 1 week ago
The germans were calling the american tanks zippo, why? because at the first shot there were flames and pieces everywhere...hahah
YUCplNK 1 week ago
I wanted to see them shoot a Tiger tank next...
Tsteve08 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@canon21100 True.. But the Allied would have had failed in their D-day landing had Hitler not blundered by screwing up the defense of French coasts. Rommel could have had repelled any Allied assaults had he been given full command..
Also, Germany had the capability to dominate the skies.. It's just that they were too low in terms of supplies and that they had too many enemies, thus vastly outnumbered and outequipped in every aspects
Th3R3taliator 1 week ago
And yes the Soviets were powerful but I believe that, granted sufficient resources and manpower, Germany could have won the war eventually, had it not been the shortages of supplies and the series of blunders on behalf of Hitler. He was an absolute idiot, though we should thank him for being so since that's why the German might fell..
As to other infos, I believe most of you would know well enough so I didn''t add
Th3R3taliator 1 week ago
First, the tiger in the video is somehow
smaller, especially in terms of the width, than the real tiger I know of. As a hobby modeler, I've had had many chances to closely observe relative sizes of tanks.
And I read that Tiger's vertical armors are in fact due to Hitler's distaste of the tank resembling Soviet T34s.. Had it not been Hitler, I believe the Tigers would have been a lot stronger and Germany would have had a sort of KonigsTiger from the start..
Th3R3taliator 1 week ago
@Th3R3taliator The Tiger I's vertical armor however was still durable as hell - the Brinell Hardness was 250-290 by WWII material standards thats really durable and solid - which meant it wasn't just 100mm thick but it also was nominally thicker than you think - and it was SLIGHTLY -veryr slightly sloped at 9-10 deg so that really gives you 102mm armor of thickness. Because its standards of manufacturing were high the Tiger I could usually survive good punishment
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@Th3R3taliator And plus the Tiger I's armor as we know it is RHA - rolled homogenous armor of Nickel-Steel alloy - unlike say the Soviets which had cast armor the RHA of the Tiger I was better despite by the war's late stages Germans were struggling to get the raw materials they needed particularly metals to reinforce thier tank armor but it was still good. There is a photo of a Tiger I captured by the British and they fired dozens of AT/Tank shells onto it; most of the shells didn't penetrate
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@Th3R3taliator Yes I noticed it was quite narrow; I have a 1/72 JS-2 obr 44 model and I compared it - its not suprising the JS-2 itself is actually a small tank compared to the German heavies; the hull is longer yes but it is lower and it is also narrower in width than the Tiger or the Panther - amazing the Soviets were able to make a compact design though. And also as you know the Tiger I's side armor whilse less vulnerable was still actually hard to penetrate by basic 75mm or 76mm guns
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@Th3R3taliator hmm the Tiger's Turret also looks somewhat narrow - from what I know of pretty much only Tiger 131 is the only Tiger that still functions in the world and the remaining 5 are either as monuments or not in running condition - it is likely this Tiger I is a dummy type model (I might be wrong). And I hope the armor thing I mentioned made some sense (not that I'm criticising your points or anything).
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
WWII was decided by air power, not armor.
canon21100 1 week ago
Comment removed
Th3R3taliator 1 week ago
@canon21100 True that. Due to tactical mistakes and mad decisions the Luftwaffe was torn apart over the soviet union and Britain.
DenverYellowStone 1 week ago
The Sherman was a poor Tank killer but making it was a better strategy for the Allies, and if the Sherman came standard with the 17 pounder on the Firefly it would have been a very different war. The Tiger and King Tiger were impressive but for the 2000-2500 Tigers built, they could have built around 6000 MK4's or 4000 Panthers and still had a good kill rate. The day of the Tiger killing 5/1 would have been numbered if the war went into 46 with the arrival of Centurions and the Pershing.
Thespeakerofmanytru8 1 week ago
By the Allies the narrator clearly excludes the Russians who possessed a great history of tank technology. That omission is unfair to the Russians who endured so much in the war. Perhaps the western Allies should have just copied the T-34.
taywil64A 2 weeks ago
@taywil64A russian technology was good.. but the king tiger was far superior than any other tank during ww2.. the allies put their hope in numbers,germans in quality
dunavidrava 2 weeks ago
1 Tiger equals 8 Shermans
cryteeek 2 weeks ago
OMG fake tiger !!
dexen2 2 weeks ago
I play World of Tanks so I know everything about tanks! ..
LeanderMr 2 weeks ago
Hitler got a tank for his birthday? No fair!
TwilightXSpark 2 weeks ago 16
@TwilightXSpark i want one too
alcapone796 1 week ago
@TwilightXSpark Well during the pre-war years when Germany was rearming I read a short story of Hitler gaping in awe at his Panzers (note these wouldn't have been the Panzer IV Ausf H nor the Panther or Tiger as they didn't see service yet!) and he was said to have cried like a child wanting a toy 'THATS WHAT I WANT - TANKS! TANKS!'
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@TwilightXSpark If you read Seig Heil! There is a short article on what Hitler's 50th b'day was like - there is a photo of him smiling happily at one of his personal gifts from Dr Ferdinand Porsche - a scale model of the Buggy Beetle car - and with plenty of wishes from his fellow Nazi's and there is a photo of a b'day cake for Hitler decorated in swastika candles :S - sounds abit scary...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
Tiger is the best tank of the WW2 :)
RoKaX89 2 weeks ago 19
@RoKaX89 what about the king tiger?
Allethillan 2 weeks ago
@RoKaX89 That would be the T-34, and not the Tiger. Sorry to disappoint, i bet Hitler felt the same way.
krejslayer 1 week ago
@RoKaX89 Panther > Tiger
EpicTrollBeastMan 1 week ago
@RoKaX89 and Tiger II, Jagdtiger, Panther, IS-3:)
Bellio23 2 days ago
T54/55..
JOHNO4992 2 weeks ago
That's not a tiger, it's just a T-34 made to look like a tiger.
493175001 2 weeks ago
komm zu papa!
TurkMilisi 3 weeks ago
Comparing apples with oranges!
Sherman was a light thank, Tiger heavy tank.
Only 1050 Tiger was made vs. 50,000 Sherman !
Later the Sherman was fitted with heavier gun than it was more successful against German tanks.
szaki 3 weeks ago
why was that shot on the armor point blank range? despite beng able to pierce through anyway at least they coodve shown that despite the sherman having much more slanted armour, it still wasn' enough the get enough bounces to survive many hits, while the tiger had much less slanted armour and would made less bounces but no penetratiions
RoronoaVegetaHBK 3 weeks ago
firefly has a chance...
xCh34pShOtx 3 weeks ago
It's impossible this tank killed a tiger. In the Ardennen - Offensive there was a "match" between a tiger and a sherman. the tiger hided behind a hedge just the cannon ranging out of it. the sherman drew up and fired from about 15 meters, constantly shooting about 10-15 rounds without damaging the tiger. the tiger one-shootet it then.
MadGuyMunich 3 weeks ago
sherman was a joke
hejdiklump 3 weeks ago
Sherman suck
Ruslan260508 3 weeks ago
@Ruslan260508: The Sherman wasn't designed to fight other Tanks, but even the small Shermans killed some Panthers & Tigers, so.. don't underestimate them! In Korea they have beaten the T-34.
SuperGeronimo999 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
a very silly comparison, medium tank (general purpose tank) to a heavy tank (anti-tank). 2 tanks are designed for different purpose
They need to compare soviet IS-3 and american M26 pershing
y3ivan 3 weeks ago
a very silly comparison, medium tank (general purpose tank) to a heavy tank (anti-tank). 2 tanks are designed for different purpose
They need to compare soviet IS-3 and american M26 pershing
y3ivan 3 weeks ago 2
Look closely at 5:10. After the Tiger fires at the opposing tank, is that the turret that flies up in the air and off the screen? If so, HOLY SHIT!
finsfan90 3 weeks ago
tiger tank in sight
Commander:ok ready ready................RUN!
thekillabeevids 3 weeks ago
Interesting, a tiger replica built on what appears to be a T55. Quite good really.
WickyWiggstaz 3 weeks ago
there is nothing more pathetic than interpreting knowlege from games into the public...for all those kids who think they know something becuse they played shits like CoD...shut the fuck up!!!
FRforcing 3 weeks ago
I think this comparison shows what the Sherman tank crews sacrificed to win WW2.
Blondeemer 3 weeks ago
Type yt:stretch=16:9 in your video tag-words. This will put the normal format back.
1981Badfish 3 weeks ago
I could point out several biases/inaccuracies, but I'll refrain from raging like a drunkster.
510Anonymous 3 weeks ago
hands down to this non-sense talk
tiger/panther stats KILL RATIO on battlefield will prove you all wrong
allies/soviet tanks burn like paper in the battlefield...
acefarbringer 3 weeks ago
Sherman tanks look like a playmobil truck
david50315 3 weeks ago
The Tiger is superior. Period.
Nered88 3 weeks ago
Sherman vs. the German
akruber1 3 weeks ago
This is a pretty silly comparison. Heavy anti-tank tank v general purpose medium tank. Just because the Americans didn't really have a heavy doesn't mean they have to wheel out the old, bigger, better gun, better armoured, Tiger wins crap over and over. Comparing the Tiger to the T-34 is pretty stupid as well because there were many Russian heavies which are pretty good comparisons to the Tiger.
moomoo1337 3 weeks ago
@moomoo1337 T34 was a tiger killer buddy its 85mm cannon opened tigers like a can at distance of 1000m with ease. With its sloped armor which was double armor due to its degree of slope and wide tracks with christie suspension T34 was superior. Then there was IS3 soviet heavy tank, but they were not so numerous like T34. They were made to kill King Tigers and Maus which never came to be.
Ouija121085 3 weeks ago
@Ouija121085 You may find your statements to be a bit too enthusiastic concerning the T-34/85.
beardo52 3 weeks ago
@Ouija121085
When later tested against German armor, it was found that the tank gun developed from the 85-mm AA gun lacked the power of its predecessor and a new antitank gun was made, the 122-mm gun from wikipedia is3 never saw a battle IS saw a battle but only in the battle for berlin
acefarbringer 3 weeks ago
@Ouija121085 T34 is a medium usually with a 76mm gun. T34-85 wasn't available until 1944 and that gun was not as powerful as you believe. T34 was more comparable to a Panther as it inspired the German tank. KV series or early IS are comparable to the Tiger.
moomoo1337 3 weeks ago
gott ammis
taiger TIGER! gott verdammt macht den panzer ehre!
99rofl 4 weeks ago
Narrator: but nobody told the American crews about the tiger! (lol,every german tank/veichle was a threat to sherman.Even puma could destroy a sherman.
g3st470 4 weeks ago
Stupid comparison.
Ouija121085 4 weeks ago
Ridiculous comparison, like comparing Tyson to myself, he would rip the head of my shoulders in a blink ...
Are we to compare any tanks at all we can at most compare to some Russian tanks.
MrCastodian 4 weeks ago
I would have preferred to have crewed a Panther. Or a TD for the Americans.
Wildcat425B 4 weeks ago
this is same comparison if you compared a Porsche with a Model T ford. Tiger was generations in front of sherman in every way. Sherman could shoot 5-6 shells at Tiger which would simply bounce off. Not until in one engagement german commander with his Tiger destroyed 17 shermans in a column in france that it was clear that major design upgrade was neeaded. Sherman Firefly with british cannon could engage german tanks tho.
Ouija121085 4 weeks ago
@Ouija121085 Except for two things. The Tiger was an open country tank. It was near useless in the small towns of Europe and had a glaring vulnerability; The gas tank, in the rear, had only two inches of armor, so all a Sherman had to do, if it could, was hit it in the ass.No one but a moron would put a Sherman up against a Tiger, of course.
skudaarkaat1 4 weeks ago
@skudaarkaat1 and how would you come behind it? Germans were not stupid they knew how to flank also. Furthermore there is really no match up between those two its like putting a mike tyson in a ring with a prepubescent 12 years old.
Ouija121085 4 weeks ago
@Ouija121085 If the Germans were so smart, though, why did they lose the war. And there are rusted out hulks of Tigers and Panthers all over Europe, and something blew them up, and many times, it was a Sherman. A Sherman was faster and much more maneuverable than the sluggish Tiger, plus, as I mentioned above, the fuel tank was not only very vulnerable but had a tendency to leak as well, so just getting it to burn could prove fatal.
skudaarkaat1 3 weeks ago
@skudaarkaat1 Germans lost the war because they attacked Russia. They made the fatal mistake of attacking Russia which is an unconquerable country, they over exteneded their recources and were later beaten by Red army all the way to Berlin. Sure they were not indestructible, but their technology at the time was at forefront in the world. As it tends to be today too. Sherman was not able to destroy a tiger in an engagement. Sherman Firefly was able to disable it but they were rare.
Ouija121085 3 weeks ago
@Ouija121085 The Sherman was quite capable of killing a Tiger. The M3 gun could penetrate the hull sides and rear of the Tiger at ranges out to 1000m. The M1A2 gun could penetrate the turret and hull sides and rear out to 1000m. The QF 17 pdr was capable of penetrating all armor inside of 1000m. In reality, these had to be perfect shots which are rare, but it was possible and did happen. The Panther glasis was the hardest to penetrate.
0341MarineInfantry 3 weeks ago
@0341MarineInfantry Maybe on paper... in reality sherman could not and was never a match for a tiger. If tiger and sherman ever met in a duel tiger wins hands down even if sherman fires first. There was an incident where a single Tiger killed 17 sherman tanks in france after D-day landing as allies were forcing armor forward. This single tiger stopped allied advance dead on! and this is not the first time it did this.
Ouija121085 3 weeks ago
@Ouija121085 there was a variety of this type of incident happening. his name was Will Frey from Das Reich, Ernst Barkmann took on 15 shermans in a panther.
angelalovemarcus 3 weeks ago
@0341MarineInfantry
The Tiger 1s frontal glacis .. even tho vertical offered more protection than the Panther`s 80mm sloaped glacis mate . Tiger 1s armour was a rolled homogeneous nickel-steel plate, electro-welded and interlocked ,which gave a Brinell hardness indicator of 280 , which was the best by ww2 standards of any tank on the battlefield . Same thickness of Tiger 1 armour gave 15-20% more protection than allied armour and over 30-35% contemporary soviet armour .
Cosmin1511 2 weeks ago
@Cosmin1511 Hello again! But the Panther had 80mm at 55 deg so thats 80/cos55 = 140mm approx of LOS thickness - wouldn't it be better than the Tiger I in deflecting shots? But again I also hear the Tiger I on the other hand had excellent Brinell Hardness and it was at 280 or so while the Panthers was more brittle hence much higher - unless it relates to Brinell Hadness and quality of manufacture which is why the Tiger I is so damned difficult to destroy frontally :)
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91
It might be mate. Its true that LOS thickness is greater than effective thickness BUT the Panthers glacis was only 80mm thick, and far more brittle than the Tiger`s 100mm front glacis.In this case the T/D coeficient comes into play again.Remeber that on the E front the panther had to cope with 85,100,122,152mm guns etc .
At certain conditions of shot overmatching plate, the cosine rule is broken and the plate resists less well than the simple cosine relationship would predict
Cosmin1511 1 week ago
@Cosmin1511 Yes - I recall in a discussion with you last year you mentioned this and yes naturally we are aware of the rule of the caliber if it can overmatch the plate (and depending on angle of impact and shot the crew made first) there is a good chance of penetrating the plate on the T/D - and I have no doubts even if the 122mm or the ZVEROBOY's huge 152mm spamming shells struck a Panther didn't exactly penetrate - it could still seriously spall the glacis or cause concussive damage
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@Cosmin1511 Have you read an article in 2006 about a recovered Panther from a lake near Poland or so? There is the photo of the Panther recovered from a lake; a 122mm shell from a JS-2 tank punch through the Panther's mantlet (not glacis) and it was such it even tore through the back armor! According to our colleage Dreachon this would have most likely to have occured at a range of less than 1200 metres as he noted JS-2 tanks rarely engaged shot duels at ranges beyond that...
HeirofGojira91 1 week ago
@HeirofGojira91
Theres a whole article explaining the all the relatonships and how all the elements come together . Ill msg it 2 u for a good reading since its too large to post here .
Cheers !
Cosmin1511 1 week ago
the America's technology is based on the captured German technology, everything from U boats to tanks and missals
joehun1 4 weeks ago in playlist More videos from mangonel1000
Americans tanks is bull shit really:D
x2pioner 1 month ago 5
@marcin21001 true lol XD
cryteeek 1 month ago
Comment removed
cryteeek 1 month ago
Only one variation of Sherman could stand up to Pzkpfw VI ... The Firefly.
mad91K 1 month ago 2
Sherman=free practice target to Tiger!
skyforer 1 month ago 2
Gun Videos = Cod Kids thinking they know everything about guns...
Tank Videos = World of Tanks Kiddies thinking they know every single shit about tanks...
MadGuyMunich 1 month ago 52
@MadGuyMunich du bist auch nicht mehr als ein wikipedia-noob der denkt er wärs...
JLK9192 4 weeks ago
@JLK9192 Woher willst du wissen, dass ich meine Aussagen von Wikipedia beziehe? Woher willst du wissen , dass ich nicht Bücher besitze? Dass ich Dokus schaue? Das ich Archieve und Seiten durchforste , die Dinge auf einer statistischen Weise darlegen? Geh wieder zurück und schau deine Dick-Figures und Minecraft Videos. Ist definitiv mehr dein Niveau.
MadGuyMunich 4 weeks ago
@MadGuyMunich genau das gleiche könnte ich auch sagen... du bezeichnest ein paar millionen Menschen als Niveaulos nur weil sie Minecraft spielen und Dick figures videos schauen? Was ist dann bitte dein Niveau? Andere als Kiddies bezeichnen weil sie CoD oder World Of Tanks spielen?Klar gibt es da Kiddies die denken sie wären die Pros aber es ist halt scheisse das alle unter 14 meistens sofort als Kiddies abgestempelt werden... lasst doch auch den Kleineren den Spaß
JLK9192 4 weeks ago
@JLK9192 Nein. Aber verdient hast du es ja, weil du einfach so mal meinst andere als "noob" bezeichnen zu müssen, ohne zu wissen woher sie ihre infos beziehen. Es nervt, wenn sich ungebildete vorpubertierte in Sachen einmischen von denen sie keine Ahnung haben. Die Sollen ruhig WOT spielen, und hier nicht die ganzen Videos mit ihrem "0815"-Wissen zuspammen. Sag bloß es spielen nicht nur 14 Jährige Cod, bzw Wot? Da fall ich ja aus Allen Wolken! *ironie*
MadGuyMunich 4 weeks ago
@MadGuyMunich the tiger tank isnt so good in wot :P
boerakker15 3 weeks ago
@MadGuyMunich: Well... Fighter-Jet Videos = HAWX Kids thinking they would know everything about planes. Mad World.
SuperGeronimo999 3 weeks ago
@MadGuyMunich lmao, you win my day
FreedomFighterEx 2 weeks ago
@MadGuyMunich NOT ALWAYS TRUE!
MEGAAGENTAWESOME 2 weeks ago
@MadGuyMunich Most of the Call of Duty Kids want to see if Erwin Rommel got kill streak bonuses.
LordVaranorDagoth 2 weeks ago
settle this in the WoT
JBLaOHeI 1 month ago
In the search bar I typed in tiger vs sherman even though I knew which one would win.
kidasterorig111 1 month ago
I have some news for these morons doing this documentary, the Tiger tank turret could turn faster than the Sherman could out maneuver it and shoot it in the Back, the Tiger could also neutral steer or pivot on the spot as well, meaning the entire tank could face the Sherman frontally in a matter of seconds, the Sherman had no chance! Also, the Tiger tank had a kill ratio of 5.7 to 1 in the entire WW2 period from 1942-45, therefore this documentary is a total fail, and propaganda, FACT.
hailherrosner 1 month ago
The test is a JOKE! What the hell is that bullshit?
RiccardoTheBeAst 1 month ago
@RiccardoTheBeAst Yeah... Thats modern bullshit TV for you!
MrJimmyjam24 1 month ago
@RiccardoTheBeAst
Absolutely.
At least they mention the fact that the Sherman was designed as an infantry support and exploitation vehicle, not as a tank-fighting slugger. It's design, capabilities, and intended use reflected this philosophy. The M4 Series was as fundamentally mismatched against the Tiger as was the PzIV C through F was against the T-34. The comparison is moot.
This is lost on most who believe the M4 series was "crappy".
Treetop64 1 month ago
"which of these two was superior"
looks left at the tiger, it's bigger in size, much bigger gun, looks more fearsome.
looks at the right, smaller, tiny gun in comparison, a regular looking tank.
did he really have to ask that question?
Jinseual 1 month ago 7
@Jinseual
this tiger isnt historical acurate,its built on t34 chasis...for film..
MrSkar87 1 month ago
@MrSkar87 well at least they got the chassis right, it looks like a real tiger tank except for the wheels. still, the tiger's are much bigger than the sherman's so that doesn't change the statement i had put up.
Jinseual 1 month ago
@MrSkar87 cos theres none left fucktard plus thats put on where its suppost to be shooting they wouldnt be shooting fantasticly kept shermans would they?
MrGetsomebaby 1 month ago
@Jinseual True, but what the shermans lacked in fire power and armor they made up for in numbers and speed
icanmyshoetie 1 month ago
@icanmyshoetie ok thanks for pointing out the obvious.....i don't really need any more info about these tanks, i had already read about them from actual books i bought, and i saw them in real life. really, don't say anything else.
Jinseual 1 month ago
The best Tank was the Tiger and Kingtiger...bye bye Sherman ;-)
GoodFelling86 1 month ago
sherman tank driver: "If he sees you you have no chance, If you see him you still have no chance"
lol
tops1028 1 month ago 68
It's stupid to comapre medium tank vs heavy one.
But US really had the most shitty tanks in WW2. Sherman was a crap compared to medium Pz3 and 4 or T-34. the only american tank which was ok was Pershing. It's a heavy one, but also loses to King Tiger or IS-2, but still better than any medium one.
Scoutrussp7 1 month ago 2
@Scoutrussp7 pz3 vs pz4 vs t-34 vs m4 sherman is a fair fight for all it really depents on the crew who would win.
369NICK963 1 month ago
@Scoutrussp7 Play enough video games? all the tanks you mentioned, in fact all the tanks of ww2 were dwarfed by the tiger, and the king tiger is called a Tiger II, something tells me you've played R.U.S.E or Company of Heros in the past.
EpicPhailReviews 1 month ago
There you see the reason the germans called the sherman the tommycooker tommykocher....
ac3b1s 1 month ago
and damn it first call of duty came around and everyone thinks there weapon experts, and now world of tanks is here and everyone thinks there fuckin tank experts...
spetsnaz892 1 month ago
USA tanks sucks... thats the fact...
Even nowadays they are bad ... Like Abrams M1 can't be compared to Leopard2 or russian t90 tank...
klaasike 1 month ago
Comment removed
Toni112007 1 month ago
@klaasike i agree Usa tank suck balls
Toni112007 1 month ago
@Toni112007 They made it like that so it could be produced quicker and be transported by boat easier and obviously it turned out to be a better tactic. So yes it was a poorer tank but in the end its numbers made up for that and armies were more mobile, and in the end proved better in supporting an entire army then just armoured division. German tanks were larger yes but slowed down the advance of the total army.
paintballKid545 1 month ago
@paintballKid545 slowed down the advance of the total army? have you not heard the term blitzkrieg? and you cant even compare the tiger to the sherman because its like comparing a volvo to a hummer, for a long time shermans werent even able to destroy a tiger because there guns were too small tigers armor was too thick...stick to paintball please
spetsnaz892 1 month ago
@spetsnaz892 And guess what dumbass, tiger tanks were used much less in blitzkrieg tactics. Panthers were the main armour used. And thats not even the point. We can compare them because there are alot more factors then armor thickness and turret size. Two of them being mobility and production rateing. Tiger gets guns and armor, Sherman gets mobility and production. They both have characteristics they are both tanks. They can be compared. Stop thinking your an expert cause your not!
paintballKid545 1 month ago
@paintballKid545 no its not a comparison, because you take 5 shermans and 1 tiger and its a fair fight, Tigers were used in blitzkriegs, get your facts straight, panthers are large tanks too....so far you got nothing..
spetsnaz892 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@spetsnaz892 are you aware that the US decided to build large numbers of smaller, less armored tanks for the simple reason they had to be transported across the Atlantic Ocean. Say what you want about how great German tanks were, the Shermans did their job, they helped win the war. There were 55,500 shermans made during 1942-1943 as opposed to 2700 tiger 1's and 2's. When did i even say 5-1 NEVER! I said "Tiger Firepower and armor Sherman mobility and production. Your reading suck
paintballKid545 1 month ago
@spetsnaz892 Tigers were not used in blitzkriegs but in a defensive war. Blitzkriegs are best fought by light tanks, which can run deep into enemy territory. Even today, when you read about end of XXc... soviet Howitzer 2S1 122mm "Гвоздика" Amphibious, light armor, fast, big diesel tank - because its purpose is aggressive and not defensive.
JojotAndTetoj 1 month ago