@1Dougy85 Nearly he entire Canadian production run of Valentines went to the Soviets but it was a British design and most Valentines (82.5%) were British built. The Soviets received more British (2400) than Canadian (1400) built Valentines.
@lepricoun At this time, the T-34 had a two man turret, with the tank commander required to help out by acting as loader. That made it very slow in reacting to the Pz 3 or Pz 4 which had 3 man turrets.
russia had stuff offered to them that they couldnt master , the rockets we shared with them , jets , AT trainin , alot of things , we even agreed to lend them acouple battle ships during ww2
@cammander263 Rockets were homegrown for the Soviets, if you're talking about the (in) famous Katyusha rocket artillery. "Jets" weren't even invented yet and they did not receive any technical help apart from using the Lend-Lease equipment themselves. As for naval ships, I don't think so.
Stalin signed the pact because he thought Germany would be tied up fighting France and the UK for years while he had his way with Eastern Europe. He thought that after a few years of fighting, both sides would be so weakened that he would then be able to push his own forces westward with little resistance. Even after France fell Stalin still believed that Germany would be tied up invading the UK.
@primpal08 Let's face it. Russia had nothing good for armor during the 30s. Besides the American built Christie Machine, with a simple modified turret (made to carry the BT-7's *Russian designation for the Christie Machine under license* amazing 47mm gun), and the British 6-Ton medium tank, with its own 47mm gun, they had absolutely nothing for their own. T-28 had major mechanical problems, horrible crew spaces, a stubbed 75mm gun, and its ammunition exposed. T-35 was an absolute disaster.
@Tyco200 True, most of the Soviet armour was destroyed within the first few weeks of the war. They failed to see the shortcomings in their military during the invasion of Finland years earlier. Stalin believed they could overcome any enemy with their superior numbers. After they were invaded they were forced to face reality. It was found out after the collapse of the Soviet Union that Stalin had tried to sue for peace at one point but that Hitler had refused.
"Крусейдеров" в РККА небыло. Только "Матильда", "Тетрарх", "Валентайн" и "Черчиль". В ограниченных количествах (по одному- два) поставлялись "Кромвель" и "Комета".
@outskool100 What? Good sir, I think it is you who should learn history. Stalin was a realist. He knew that the war in the West would come sooner or later and so he took the opportunity to extend his borders to make a buffer between Soviet territories and Germany's. Of course, nobody expected Hitler to take over all of Western Europe so easily, that really pulled a spanner into the works for Stalin's plans for invasion. What Stalin did to the Poles afterwards was motivated by the events of 1920
@outskool100 Cont... where he was the commissar leading into disastrous war between Poland and the Soviet Union. He was blamed for its defeat by his enemy Leon Trotsky and felt that he needed to avenge himself. That was one of the motivations for the Polish officer massacre in the Katyn Forest.
British helped Russia in some way in the main battles, Moscow,Stalingrad and Kursk. It was vital that American supplied Britain and that British with its great navy and cargo ships could supply Russia for thewar effort.
@RazziNDarkside Russia supplied the Axis Alliance against Britain/France 1939-41, And were secret partners with Hitler. However After the Battle of Britain, The British showed the Axis that they couldnt be invaded they had a great Navy and most of all Air-Power. But they couldnt meet the Axis in the battlefield, The Axis had a bigger Army and better tactics and Luftwaffe was bigger than the R.A.F, Russia had countless millions of men, And needed help-Britain needed a FRIEND!
@RazziNDarkside Hitler admired the British Empire, And loved the British Culture. He saw the British as equals and wanted them as Allies. However he then invaded Poland and refused to leave whitch was against the law. Also Hitler made secret deals with Stalin. Aso the Cold war started 1944, Russia was never seen as an Allie, Churchill hated the Communists so did most Europeans,Americans. The relations between the Allies and Russia was very bad..They just didnt trust each other.
@outskool100 HA, And you think thats evidence that Churchill liked the Communists?? He just ment he would side over Russia than Germany! Remember Europe,America most of the world hated Communism! Also Nazis had pacts and deals with Stalin and the Communists, The Russains supplied the Axis in the Battles of France,Britain and even Africa 1939-41 till the Nazis turned on the Communists! Churchill and Stalin had the same thing in comming, Same enemies and both had been humiliated. Russia more!
@outskool100 Churchill was an ARDENT Communist hater. Remember who this man was, he was a royalist and pro-Imperialist who loved to have Britain back into its majestic colonial power. He saw Communism as a threat to his idealistic Victorian world and would do anything he can to stop it infecting England and Europe. But he did hate Fascism and Nazism more than Communism because of its racial ideology and other publicized pogroms.
At the time of this video the British were fighting German axis forces in North Africa. If Germany had captured North Arica it could have then sent this army through Egypt to capture the oil fields of the Caucasus, an original Barbarossa objective. This would have the freed the entire Army Group South in its summer offensive to take Stalingrad, which was only lightly defended when Volga crossed on 20/08/1942.
True. But one ather way to see this is that without the bulk of the German forces bogged down on the Eastern Front I doubt there would have been an allied victory in North Africa. I think Hitler only sent troops there because the Italians got soundly beaten there, and also in Greece and in part of the Balkans (formey Yugoslavia).
To the FInnish Marshall Mannerheim (his 75'th birthday) Hitler admitted that Italy and her failures caused him constant trouble.
Rommel daydreamed of sending his army through Egypt and onwards but the reality was that he had neither fuel or supply vehicles (trucks) to do that. The Wehrmacht supply chain was mostly by horse-drawn carriage and such an undertaking was impossible.
@MrTurpasauna ??? They bore Nazi attack alone, the only british and and american help before 43 were weapons. Oh by the way do you know the russian nickname for the US Grant tank? Coffin for four
It's pretty stupid for russians to mock other countries tanks which were 1000 times better. Russian T34's were turned into iron coffins in every battle. T34's were mass produced shitbags that could only win if they outnumbered the germans. Btw it was from year 1941 that the americans and british started to help soviets. They sent them weapons, ammo, food, tanks, fighter planes, jeeps, trucks, bombers. If you dont believe then how do you explain that russians had hurricanes, shermans..
@MrTurpasauna haven´t you read my reply? I said that they send weapons. Oh by the way the t34 was so crappy that the geramns copied it (the panther) The sherman by the way was very vulnerable. Many german tank soldiers said germans didn´t give them headaches, not even fireflys. Read a bit history and try to be a bit less biased
Panther and t34 dont even look same. And before the panther was the tiger that slaughtered t34's like cockroaches. If T34's were so "good", why russians lost over 1500 tanks in the battle of kursk and germans lost 300? Like i said, without the help from US and britain, russia would be a big desert with abandoned, destroyed towns everywhere.
@MrTurpasauna tiger and panther came at the same time in 43 at the battle of kursk, honey. Germany lost only 300 there? verify your numbers, please. the battle at kursk crippled the wehrmacht, after that they were unable to regain the offensive in the east. The panther was bigger than the t34 and and technologically unsound. most panthers broke down at the battle of kursk, because of mechanical problems.
Fool, tiger came in the 1942 and panther came in the late 1943. Of course panther is bigger because it's a heavy tank, T34's were not. Yes, they broke down sometimes because germans relied so much on the technology, and it was good thing sometimes like at kursk, where the mass produced T34's were slaughtered by advanded german tanks. If the war would have just been germany vs soviets, the "russia" would be only a small plant near the bering sea right now.
I know that shermans sucked compared to german tanks, so what? I dont care about american tanks. If you didn't know, i'm not an american trying to save poor sherman's reputation. Only thing i ever said is that americans gave sherman tanks to the soviets. Panther is over 10 tons heavier than T34 so that makes panther heavy tank and T34 is a medium tank.
@livadi9 This explains why there was only one major battle and the war ran from 1941 to 1943. And the damnable Sovs never flew Hurricanes and never drove Valentines. Joe for King!
@MrTurpasauna 60% of the motorized vehicles in the Red army at the end of WW2 had been supplied from the western allies (over 450,000 vehicles delivered), mostly from the US but also large numbers from Britain and Canada. This included 6000 Shermans, 300 of which made up 10% of the Soviet tank forces at the battle of Kursk. From 1943 all Katusha rocket launchers were mounted solely on US supplied Studebaker trucks. 100% of the amphibious vehicles in the Red Srmy came from the USA.
Bs. It wasn't until 1943 American aid and weapons came in significant numbers. Also it was mostly trucks, food and radios. The fighters were only 20% of the total Soviet production, and the tanks less than 10%.
Horseshit.The T34 defeated every German tank in '41 and '42 and wasn't really defeated until the heavy Tiger and Panther came along, and those never were the most numerous tank in the German army, it was the Panzer IV
The Soviet made most of their weapons themselves.Fact
@McLarenMercedes 60% of the motorized vehicles in the Red army when the war ended were supplied by the Western allies. The USSR built 170,000 truck compared to Germany (340,000) Britain (400,000) , Canada (700,000) and USA 2.7mill. From 1943 all Katuscha Rockets were mounted on US supplied Studebaker Trucks. All jeeps, half tracks and amphibious vehicles were supplied by the US. This allowed the Soviets to concentrate tank production. 10% of Red army tanks came from the west
@binaway What you say is true only if you are talking about trucks produced during the war. Even though the Soviets only made 170,000 trucks during the war they made over 1 million before. They ended the war with 58% Soviet made trucks, 33% British or US and 9% were captured German trucks.
Btw, the IS2 heavy tank could knock out Tigers and Panthers with the blast force of its 122 mm gun. There were way more of those than there were TIgers.
The Ppsh41 was the most produced submachine gun in WW2. Over 6 million made. So many that the German troops used them themselves and it became the 3rd most common infantry weapon in the Wehrmacht.
You sound extremely biased and have never read a single book about WW2. You lost the war, deal with it and get on with you "life".
Ha, all russian tanks were crappy mass produced iron coffins. How do you explain that russians had the biggest losses of the war, men and machinery... Ppsh41 was just a crappy russian copy of the finnish "suomi konepistooli". You have only read russian "history" books. swedes are eternal cowards.
@MrTurpasauna Those "massed-produced iron coffins" won the war. And as for the Ppsh 41 being a copy of another weapon, isn't all weapons influenced and derived from something? This goes towards armored vehicles as well, you could say American tanks were influenced gradually from the original Renault F17s they acquired in the First World War. As I said, those things won the war in the end.
@romanlegions yeah, "won" the war but still were the most destroyed tank model in ww2. Russians are masters in copying things from others. Everybody knows the famous "russian" ak-47. Well, after the war russians captured many german workers/scientists who made/designed weapons etc. ak47 is a copy from mp44 or stg44.
@MrTurpasauna Don't forget it was the Russians who did the most to defeat the Germans so not surprising they had the most destroyed tanks. The Russians destroyed more German tanks than other nations probably combined.The US also captured many german workers/scientists who made/designed weapons.
If landings at normandy had failed, so could the russian attack in the eastern front. i mean come on, US troops landed in france 1944 and year later they were almost at berlin. It took many years from russians to get there. Don't forget there wasn't only 1 front in the west. Western allies were fighting in africa and there were some brutal tank battles too, plus italy some time later. So i dont think that russians destroyed more german tanks.
@MrTurpasauna If Russian attacks failed D Day certainly would have. British, American and Canadian troops landed in France in 1944. The Russians turned the tide at Stalingrad and by Kursk the writing was on the wall. The Russians were fighting the bulk of the German army for years, the western allies were not. In Italy there were 25 allied divisions against 23 German when there was 220 German divisions on the eastern front not counting their allies. The Russians destroyed many more tanks.
Fail. Great britain, france/resistance etc. fought against germany from the year 1939. Germany and USSR were allies to year 1941. Usa started fighting against japan in the 1941 too. If the british defense had failed, germans would take over britain and then push all their forces to the soviet union. There were many tank battles in the western front, kursk is the only known battle from the east.
@MrTurpasauna Yes I know Britain and the FF were fighting the Germans from the beginning, I meant along with the US and on a large scale. British Commonwealth was the main with the FF being few so few allies. There were many many tank battles on the eastern front, Kursk was only the largest. Russia made more tanks and tank killers than the US did and didn't share them with anyone, What do you suppose they did with them?
@1Dougy85 the russians were also slaughtered ( more russian soldiers died then any other country ) also italy is much smaller then Russia and is easily defensible, making it a nightmare to attack, barely any room to maneuver and mountainous terrain, the germans didn't need that many units to hold italy, if you take the approximate size of the front line and divide by the number of units per mile of kilometer you'll find a much heavier concentration of germans in italy
@eagleclawproduction1 I agree with everything you say except the much heavier concentration of Germans in Italy. With German allies on the eastern front the axis concentration was the same as Italy. The point I was trying to make was the scale of war for the western allies was much smaller than on the eastern front.
@1Dougy85 23 divisions covering a peninsula less then 40 miles wide, compared to 220 covering a front around 2,000 miles long, divide it up and you have a german division for about every 2 miles for italy and a german division every 9 miles for Russia - much heavier concentration
@eagleclawproduction1 Your math is good but your facts are off, 40 miles wide? At which point? The Gustav line was 90 miles coast to coast. The eastern front was 1,000 miles
@1Dougy85 lets fact this in then, italy - 1 division for every 4.3 miles or so, russia - one division every 4.45 miles. well I guess the concentration wasn't all that much higher, so the germans where very equal with their distribution of troops, wait I forgot the italian units, I think they had 73 italian units backing them up, probably decreased to about 70 or maybe mid 60's, so lets say there was a total of 80-96 divisions facing the allies on italy, thats one division every mile
@eagleclawproduction1 I think the Germans forgot the Italian units also. You think they had 73 Italian units backing them up? Not in Italy. Italy signed the armistice the same day the allies started to land in Italy and were disarmed. The Italian army even provided truck transport to some allies complete with drivers. There were some Italian soldiers that volunteered to fight for the Germans but numbered only a few battalions. Also Anzio beachhead lowered the German concentration at Gustav line.
@1Dougy85 valid point, also only 20 italian units were fully manned and armed, and Antonio beach was a strategic move to help end the slaughter and stalemate of the gustav line ( monte cassino ) and they had 73 italian units at the begin, but it was probably more like 20 or less left do to the fact that 1. mst didn't even support the war, and 2. they are really bad at fighting, so lets call it 10 before the armistice, maybe 5 or 6 after ( or less )
I don't think the word "capture" is the right word to use here. Scientists like einstein escaped willingly to US during/after the war. And the scientists in usa actually accomplished something, like jet planes that everybody uses today to get to holidays etc. In russia they were seen as slaves and russians only made weapons for their own selfish needs.
@MrTurpasauna The Russians destroyed 80% of the German army.
Einstein left before the war. Didn't the former German Nazis that the US captured make weapons for the US selfish needs? The German that designed the rocket that went to the moon was a Nazi. Thousands of nazis had their files changed by the US so they could be brought in and work. German scientists in Russia also accomplished something like jet planes and after many years they were allowed to go back to Germany if they wished.
According to the books I have read it seems that US Doctrin at that time stated Tank Destroyers not Tanks were to engage other Tanks thats why the Sherman had a "pop gun" when compared with theTigers & Panthers. On D-Day the only TANK the Priest & M10 being tank destroyers, able to knock out a Tiger or Panther was the Sherman Firefly. Partly for this reason the Brits & Canadians got to play primarily with the SS Panzer Divisions in Normandy. And before anyone starts yelling look it up...
The British fiddled too much with obsolete ideas such as infantry support/cruiser etc.
Only at the end of the war they got it right resulting in the Centurion and the Archer SP. But let's not forget the Centaur and/or the Comet(same tank,different engine)
In the end they turned to the States for tanks (and cash).The M3 Lee at 1st and the M4 Sherman ;the latter later improved into a good British design: the Firefly with a 17-pounder gun, a match for the Panther!
@ZerokillerOppel And if they had stopped bombing Germany, the ReichsKriegsFahne would fly over Washington. Yep we paid a tank crew price but you bastards lost. Think about it!!!!!! If there is be a 1000 year Reich, it might be achieved in 2066. :-)
It is always interesting to observe how the trully ignorant feel no shame at expressing their opinions on subjects they have no real knowledge of. The British aid coming as it did when the Russian's had almost collapsed and being thrown into the Battle for Moscow helped save the Soviets from an early defeat and allow themn to relocate thier factories and begin to churn out the T-34's and KV's that won the ground war for them.
@scottduncan44 I'm not ignorant in these matters and not without shame and I agree on all of your points but the fact remains that the British tanks were obsolete in design (armourthickness-armament etc) how very welcome the aid ofcourse was to the Soviets.
@MOHAAVIDEO The Sherman was the best tank in the world, in 1941 and early 1942. It soldiered on through the rest of the war, and still provided useful tactical advantages in 1945, such as superior ability to fire on the move with a stabilized gun and fast electric traverse.
@DonMeaker Sooo drink koolaid much? The Sherman was a plentiful tank but no where near as great a tank as you might be led to believe. Belton Cooper who was part of the Maintenance Corp during WW2 said the the Sherman was a very poor joke of a tank. He was the one who had to refurbish the hulk after it was brought in for repairs. They often had to hose out the remains of the crew and repaint the inside. Read your History better there slick. One word.... Ronson.....
@3shacks1house So let me know when you find a WWII german tank with stabilized gun. Sherman tanks did burn, but German and Soviet tanks which took hits to ammunition bunkers detonated. Tanks in WWII were dangerous places to be. So was the infantry. Your point?
@DonMeaker point was the sherman had a reputation of "brewing up" above all the other tanks used by British forces (different engine layout? ) to the point they were nicknamed "ronsons" - a lighter -"lights every time", it wasn't just a british bias the Germans also dubbed the sherman "the tommy-cooker" and US refusal to up-gun it with the 17 pounder was just prideful stupidity with costed lives in normandy
@farmerned6 Early sherman had two very bad shot traps just in front of the driver/assistant driver. Later sherman fixed that. US ammunition did burn (deflagrate) and later wet storage addressed it. Other tanks usually detonated if the ammunition was hit. US didn't refuse to up gun it with 17pdr, but rather upgunned it with 76mm gun (reengineered 3 inch) like the M-18 tank destroyer. 17 pdr was not stabilized, and so couldnt shoot on the move.
@DonMeaker I'm sure all tanks would burn once the ammo was hit , the sherman had a reputation of burning easier than other's And yes the US did up-gun AFTER they were murdered by about 60 tigers/panthers post D-Day, point is US refused to fit the proven-available 17 Lb'r -fooled around with the 90mm and then fitted the 76mm (even though it was a inferior tank-killing weapon than the 17 Lb'r ). after the british had been proved right, the bias against the 17 Lb'r was political
@farmerned6 May have been political. Britain was pretty sorely pressed at that point, and I wonder what the logistics were of shipping Brit guns to the US at that stage in the war. In Italy the Panthers like the Tigers in Africa were encountered and resolved. The Allies were suprised by the production rate of the panther, wrongly thinking that they were just another heavy tank to be produced in small numbers. Don't know the interaction between that realization and lead time for production.
Why make 17 lb'rs in the UK? packard were making merlins, Canadians were building hurricanes , mossie's and lanc's simpler to make under licence in the US, common ammo less supply lines prob's, better gun , ready to go, give the poor tanker's a fighting chance , instead of losing 4-10 shermans per tiger
@farmerned6 US doctrine during the war was to use tank destroyers against tanks, and US officers saw combat in that way. with the 75mm high explosive round to be used against infantry. When losses in Normandy and larger production numbers of Panther became apparent, the 76mm gun was already in production, rather than retool for 17 pounder
Certainly Britain was very generous with intellectual property during the war. Why was the 17 pounder not fitted to more British tanks?
@DonMeaker Yes and the Tank destroyer was proved wrong at Kasserine Pass
same as the british Infantry/cruiser tank doctrine had failed in the battle of france resulting in the Centurion- "tank universal"
the 76mm developed in mid 42- the 17 Lb'r was aready a combat field gun,
already proven better
early british tank were up-guned to their limit (2 lb'r to 6 lb'r /US 75mm) but the mid war designs(43-45 tanks) comet,cromwell,challenger (centurion late) had 17ld'rs (or HV 77mm)
@farmerned6 Tank destroyers at Kasserine were M-3 halftracks with 75mm guns. Not bad armament for 1942 when the british tanks had 6 pounders. The M-10 came out soon after and had 3 inch antiaircraft guns, which served well through Italy. The 76 was designed as a product improved 3 inch to fit in the M-18 Hornet. The 76mm gun was on 2000 M-4s provided to Soviets, and had better armor penetration than the T-34s 85mm gun. The M-36 Jackson came out with a 90mm just before the 40 Pershing tanks.
same thing applies the M-10 in British service also was give the better 17-pounder (like the Archer ) (M-18 was the hellcat wasn't it?) my point was as US copied the 6-pounder (57mm) as an anti-tank gun WHY they dropped the better ,proven & available 17-pounder in preference to 76mm?,
re-tooling doesn’t really explain it - the British had less capacity to convert than the US already and still did.
@farmerned6 Interesting. The 3 inch antiaircraft gun (father of the 76mm) was certainly adequate to 1943, and it may be that successful experience and wrong expectations for future led to the idea that a better cannon between the 76 and 90mm was perhaps not a good investment. There was a prototype of the 90mm gun on a M-18 chassis (muzzlebrake was very much necessary) and the jackson fielded over 300 90mm guns in theater fairly quickly once the need was realized. (yes, M-18 was hellcat)
the 17-pounder is hardly "between" them, 90mm's penetration power is only a few mm more, given the 90mm would have needed a new turret(on the Sherman), as the 76mm needed chopping and a balance weight, the 17-pounder is the obvious choice to go with during wartime,
@farmerned6 The 17 pounder also needed a balance weight. The choice is not obvious to me. It was a tradeoff. The 17 pounder didn't have a high explosive round, and US doctrine emphasized the use of tanks with high explosive rounds against infantry in the attack, That makes the tradeoff more interesting.
May have needed a balance, but it didn't need shortening like the 76mm (10% loss) it had a hi-ex round- just not a great one While the 76mm AP had a fuse problem which rendered it ineffective
The allies KNEW that there were going to be panthers and tigers in Normandy , and that there were more nearby, they went to a great deal of trouble, disrupting the railways to slow them down, given that knowledge I'd want a gun that can kill a tiger- dead tanks cant help Infantry
@farmerned6 76mm guns with the Tungsten Carbide cap had adequate penetration. Creighton Abrams came up with tactics that made even the 75mm Sherman a winner. Those tactics just happened to be the ones that were in line with US doctrine, attacking infantry, penetrating, then letting the enemy tanks spear themselves on US tank destroyers. I suppose we could have delayed the invasion for a year, but that would have given Jerry a chance to make even bigger badder tanks.
a, M4's weren't issued with tungsten rounds anyway
b, the 76mm tungsten rounds were only as effective than the 17 lb'ers capped AP rounds,even the 6-pounders tunsten round could match it, the 17 lb'ers tungsten round could penetrate 200mm(-ish)
they could'nt really put off D-day after the build-up, and they would have met the same tanks in N Italy anyway,
&
more V1 & 2's fired, more of Europe in soviets hands post VE day OR nukes dropped on germany
@farmerned6 Or another deal between the Soviets and the Nazis. Once again, the 17 lbder was between the much larger 90mm gun and the 3 inch gun in effectiveness. A trade off between which you put on your tanks, how many you have, and when you get them. US doctrine was to use HE rounds against infantry for tanks and Armor piercing rounds against tanks with tank destroyers. And surprise surprise, the US armor chose the better HE round.
@DonMeaker No, the 17 pounder was trial'd agaist the 76mm (by Gen delves?) which somehow came up with the odd result that the 76mm AP was as good as the 17Lber (surprise-surprise)
the 90mm was still in development and again needed a new turret , and was still only barely better than the 17Lber,
OK - given US doctrine - why wasn't the 17Lber fitted to US TD's anyway?
British TD's were artillery troops,and still fitted 17lbers in peference, even if it did reduce their HE support role
@farmerned6 The 17 pounder was fitted to US tanks and antitank guns, and employed by the British with good effect. US artillery units had better radio communications than British, Soviet, or German and accordingly were more effective in indirect fire. US TD units in Italy spent much of their time shooting HE rounds. (Congress had limited large caliber artillery production, unhappy that so much had been moved to Africa, and wanted ammunition already produced to be used.
@farmerned6 An appreciation of Soviet tanks can be gleaned from a Russian book about the US shermans which served with Soviets. The author really liked the Sherman, and served in them from Poland to Manchuria, having previously served in T-34s. He is my favorite source on Soviet tank ammunition detonating.
@MOHAAVIDEO Did the 17 pounder gun keep the gun stabilization system that the 75 and 76 mm Shermans had?
The high profile of the Sherman was useful in the Hedgerows. The high profile was due to using an aircraft engine as power plant, which gave it its high reliability.
Covenanter - thats English for "useless waste of time and resources". We made some appalling tanks during WW2 but Covenanter was without doubt THE WORST. I too though they all stayed here.
@ss95123 thats not strictly true. in africa the british matilda and crusader tanks were just a match for the panzer 2 and 3's. also later in the war the brits took the american sherman tank and modified it using basically a sawn off 17 pounder AT gun, which proved deadly against even tiger and panthers. and even later came the comet cruiser tank which had a similar gun but used different high velocity armour piercing rounds. there were bad british tanks yes but also effective ones.
Британские танки мусор
MyDemon73 2 months ago
the tanks we sent them were woefully inadequate..............
but it bought time and the end state was as good as could be expected.
tutnallman 5 months ago
@tutnallman Not as inadequate as the Pz I,Pz II and Pz 38 (t).
Paciat 4 months ago
The Valentine tank made in Canada and shipped to Russia
1Dougy85 8 months ago
@1Dougy85 Of the 8,000 Valentines made just over 1400 were built in Canada and most of these,as you said,went to the Soviets
binaway 6 months ago
@binaway And?
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85 Nearly he entire Canadian production run of Valentines went to the Soviets but it was a British design and most Valentines (82.5%) were British built. The Soviets received more British (2400) than Canadian (1400) built Valentines.
binaway 3 months ago
@binaway Yes, I know all that.
1Dougy85 3 months ago
t-34 much better
lepricoun 9 months ago
@lepricoun At this time, the T-34 had a two man turret, with the tank commander required to help out by acting as loader. That made it very slow in reacting to the Pz 3 or Pz 4 which had 3 man turrets.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
russia had stuff offered to them that they couldnt master , the rockets we shared with them , jets , AT trainin , alot of things , we even agreed to lend them acouple battle ships during ww2
cammander263 9 months ago
@cammander263 Rockets were homegrown for the Soviets, if you're talking about the (in) famous Katyusha rocket artillery. "Jets" weren't even invented yet and they did not receive any technical help apart from using the Lend-Lease equipment themselves. As for naval ships, I don't think so.
romanlegions 6 months ago
Stalin signed the pact because he thought Germany would be tied up fighting France and the UK for years while he had his way with Eastern Europe. He thought that after a few years of fighting, both sides would be so weakened that he would then be able to push his own forces westward with little resistance. Even after France fell Stalin still believed that Germany would be tied up invading the UK.
primpal08 10 months ago 6
@primpal08 Let's face it. Russia had nothing good for armor during the 30s. Besides the American built Christie Machine, with a simple modified turret (made to carry the BT-7's *Russian designation for the Christie Machine under license* amazing 47mm gun), and the British 6-Ton medium tank, with its own 47mm gun, they had absolutely nothing for their own. T-28 had major mechanical problems, horrible crew spaces, a stubbed 75mm gun, and its ammunition exposed. T-35 was an absolute disaster.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@Tyco200 True, most of the Soviet armour was destroyed within the first few weeks of the war. They failed to see the shortcomings in their military during the invasion of Finland years earlier. Stalin believed they could overcome any enemy with their superior numbers. After they were invaded they were forced to face reality. It was found out after the collapse of the Soviet Union that Stalin had tried to sue for peace at one point but that Hitler had refused.
primpal08 2 months ago
"Крусейдеров" в РККА небыло. Только "Матильда", "Тетрарх", "Валентайн" и "Черчиль". В ограниченных количествах (по одному- два) поставлялись "Кромвель" и "Комета".
Polykov1 10 months ago 6
wow ur an good lier
dude stalin only signed the pact to take revenge on poland
they dint want to have germany in their way
learn history you dumbfuck
outskool100 10 months ago
@outskool100 What? Good sir, I think it is you who should learn history. Stalin was a realist. He knew that the war in the West would come sooner or later and so he took the opportunity to extend his borders to make a buffer between Soviet territories and Germany's. Of course, nobody expected Hitler to take over all of Western Europe so easily, that really pulled a spanner into the works for Stalin's plans for invasion. What Stalin did to the Poles afterwards was motivated by the events of 1920
romanlegions 6 months ago
@outskool100 Cont... where he was the commissar leading into disastrous war between Poland and the Soviet Union. He was blamed for its defeat by his enemy Leon Trotsky and felt that he needed to avenge himself. That was one of the motivations for the Polish officer massacre in the Katyn Forest.
And please do not call someone a "dumbfuck".
romanlegions 6 months ago
British helped Russia in some way in the main battles, Moscow,Stalingrad and Kursk. It was vital that American supplied Britain and that British with its great navy and cargo ships could supply Russia for thewar effort.
martynrobin121 11 months ago
@martynrobin121 what did Russia do for Britain?
RazziNDarkside 10 months ago
@RazziNDarkside Russia supplied the Axis Alliance against Britain/France 1939-41, And were secret partners with Hitler. However After the Battle of Britain, The British showed the Axis that they couldnt be invaded they had a great Navy and most of all Air-Power. But they couldnt meet the Axis in the battlefield, The Axis had a bigger Army and better tactics and Luftwaffe was bigger than the R.A.F, Russia had countless millions of men, And needed help-Britain needed a FRIEND!
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 kool, thanks...is there any thing else interesting about the axis/allies of ww2?
RazziNDarkside 10 months ago
@RazziNDarkside Hitler admired the British Empire, And loved the British Culture. He saw the British as equals and wanted them as Allies. However he then invaded Poland and refused to leave whitch was against the law. Also Hitler made secret deals with Stalin. Aso the Cold war started 1944, Russia was never seen as an Allie, Churchill hated the Communists so did most Europeans,Americans. The relations between the Allies and Russia was very bad..They just didnt trust each other.
martynrobin121 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 nice
RazziNDarkside 10 months ago
@martynrobin121 wrong churchill dint hate the communist
hey sayed''if i had to choose between communis and nazism i would choose communism''churchill
outskool100 10 months ago
@outskool100 HA, And you think thats evidence that Churchill liked the Communists?? He just ment he would side over Russia than Germany! Remember Europe,America most of the world hated Communism! Also Nazis had pacts and deals with Stalin and the Communists, The Russains supplied the Axis in the Battles of France,Britain and even Africa 1939-41 till the Nazis turned on the Communists! Churchill and Stalin had the same thing in comming, Same enemies and both had been humiliated. Russia more!
martynrobin121 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@outskool100 He also said he would choose facism over communism.
tyskbulle 9 months ago
@outskool100 Churchill was an ARDENT Communist hater. Remember who this man was, he was a royalist and pro-Imperialist who loved to have Britain back into its majestic colonial power. He saw Communism as a threat to his idealistic Victorian world and would do anything he can to stop it infecting England and Europe. But he did hate Fascism and Nazism more than Communism because of its racial ideology and other publicized pogroms.
romanlegions 6 months ago
At the time of this video the British were fighting German axis forces in North Africa. If Germany had captured North Arica it could have then sent this army through Egypt to capture the oil fields of the Caucasus, an original Barbarossa objective. This would have the freed the entire Army Group South in its summer offensive to take Stalingrad, which was only lightly defended when Volga crossed on 20/08/1942.
llucan01 1 year ago
@llucan01
True. But one ather way to see this is that without the bulk of the German forces bogged down on the Eastern Front I doubt there would have been an allied victory in North Africa. I think Hitler only sent troops there because the Italians got soundly beaten there, and also in Greece and in part of the Balkans (formey Yugoslavia).
To the FInnish Marshall Mannerheim (his 75'th birthday) Hitler admitted that Italy and her failures caused him constant trouble.
McLarenMercedes 11 months ago
@llucan01
Rommel daydreamed of sending his army through Egypt and onwards but the reality was that he had neither fuel or supply vehicles (trucks) to do that. The Wehrmacht supply chain was mostly by horse-drawn carriage and such an undertaking was impossible.
adamcrookedsmile 8 months ago
@adamcrookedsmile yes thanks to British submarines & the aircraft carrier called Malta.
It was the first submarine victory of WWII as well
LordGeorgeRodney 3 months ago
in kursk soviet bravery and superiority crashed germans.
JIMY45GR 1 year ago
@JIMY45GR as supplied in American trucks!
rmjackaman 11 months ago
Russians always claim they "won germany alone". This is another proof that they would have pissed their pants without yankees or brits.
MrTurpasauna 1 year ago
@MrTurpasauna ??? They bore Nazi attack alone, the only british and and american help before 43 were weapons. Oh by the way do you know the russian nickname for the US Grant tank? Coffin for four
livadi9 1 year ago
@livadi9
It's pretty stupid for russians to mock other countries tanks which were 1000 times better. Russian T34's were turned into iron coffins in every battle. T34's were mass produced shitbags that could only win if they outnumbered the germans. Btw it was from year 1941 that the americans and british started to help soviets. They sent them weapons, ammo, food, tanks, fighter planes, jeeps, trucks, bombers. If you dont believe then how do you explain that russians had hurricanes, shermans..
MrTurpasauna 1 year ago
@MrTurpasauna haven´t you read my reply? I said that they send weapons. Oh by the way the t34 was so crappy that the geramns copied it (the panther) The sherman by the way was very vulnerable. Many german tank soldiers said germans didn´t give them headaches, not even fireflys. Read a bit history and try to be a bit less biased
livadi9 1 year ago
@livadi9
Panther and t34 dont even look same. And before the panther was the tiger that slaughtered t34's like cockroaches. If T34's were so "good", why russians lost over 1500 tanks in the battle of kursk and germans lost 300? Like i said, without the help from US and britain, russia would be a big desert with abandoned, destroyed towns everywhere.
MrTurpasauna 1 year ago
@MrTurpasauna tiger and panther came at the same time in 43 at the battle of kursk, honey. Germany lost only 300 there? verify your numbers, please. the battle at kursk crippled the wehrmacht, after that they were unable to regain the offensive in the east. The panther was bigger than the t34 and and technologically unsound. most panthers broke down at the battle of kursk, because of mechanical problems.
livadi9 1 year ago
@livadi9
Fool, tiger came in the 1942 and panther came in the late 1943. Of course panther is bigger because it's a heavy tank, T34's were not. Yes, they broke down sometimes because germans relied so much on the technology, and it was good thing sometimes like at kursk, where the mass produced T34's were slaughtered by advanded german tanks. If the war would have just been germany vs soviets, the "russia" would be only a small plant near the bering sea right now.
MrTurpasauna 1 year ago
@MrTurpasauna you are a fool. The t34 was a medium tank, just like the panther.
The war was not just Germans vs Soviets, germany lost, so stop crying baby:-)
by the way shermans were no match for german tanks not even the panzer4.
livadi9 1 year ago
@livadi9
I know that shermans sucked compared to german tanks, so what? I dont care about american tanks. If you didn't know, i'm not an american trying to save poor sherman's reputation. Only thing i ever said is that americans gave sherman tanks to the soviets. Panther is over 10 tons heavier than T34 so that makes panther heavy tank and T34 is a medium tank.
MrTurpasauna 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrTurpasauna so you say you cannot compare them? Why do you then?
livadi9 1 year ago
@livadi9 This explains why there was only one major battle and the war ran from 1941 to 1943. And the damnable Sovs never flew Hurricanes and never drove Valentines. Joe for King!
rmjackaman 11 months ago
@rmjackaman from 41 to 43? what about the years 44 and 45?
livadi9 11 months ago
@MrTurpasauna 60% of the motorized vehicles in the Red army at the end of WW2 had been supplied from the western allies (over 450,000 vehicles delivered), mostly from the US but also large numbers from Britain and Canada. This included 6000 Shermans, 300 of which made up 10% of the Soviet tank forces at the battle of Kursk. From 1943 all Katusha rocket launchers were mounted solely on US supplied Studebaker trucks. 100% of the amphibious vehicles in the Red Srmy came from the USA.
binaway 1 year ago
@MrTurpasauna
Bs. It wasn't until 1943 American aid and weapons came in significant numbers. Also it was mostly trucks, food and radios. The fighters were only 20% of the total Soviet production, and the tanks less than 10%.
Horseshit.The T34 defeated every German tank in '41 and '42 and wasn't really defeated until the heavy Tiger and Panther came along, and those never were the most numerous tank in the German army, it was the Panzer IV
The Soviet made most of their weapons themselves.Fact
McLarenMercedes 11 months ago
@McLarenMercedes 60% of the motorized vehicles in the Red army when the war ended were supplied by the Western allies. The USSR built 170,000 truck compared to Germany (340,000) Britain (400,000) , Canada (700,000) and USA 2.7mill. From 1943 all Katuscha Rockets were mounted on US supplied Studebaker Trucks. All jeeps, half tracks and amphibious vehicles were supplied by the US. This allowed the Soviets to concentrate tank production. 10% of Red army tanks came from the west
binaway 6 months ago
@binaway What you say is true only if you are talking about trucks produced during the war. Even though the Soviets only made 170,000 trucks during the war they made over 1 million before. They ended the war with 58% Soviet made trucks, 33% British or US and 9% were captured German trucks.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@MrTurpasauna
Btw, the IS2 heavy tank could knock out Tigers and Panthers with the blast force of its 122 mm gun. There were way more of those than there were TIgers.
The Ppsh41 was the most produced submachine gun in WW2. Over 6 million made. So many that the German troops used them themselves and it became the 3rd most common infantry weapon in the Wehrmacht.
You sound extremely biased and have never read a single book about WW2. You lost the war, deal with it and get on with you "life".
McLarenMercedes 11 months ago
@McLarenMercedes
Ha, all russian tanks were crappy mass produced iron coffins. How do you explain that russians had the biggest losses of the war, men and machinery... Ppsh41 was just a crappy russian copy of the finnish "suomi konepistooli". You have only read russian "history" books. swedes are eternal cowards.
MrTurpasauna 11 months ago
@MrTurpasauna Those "massed-produced iron coffins" won the war. And as for the Ppsh 41 being a copy of another weapon, isn't all weapons influenced and derived from something? This goes towards armored vehicles as well, you could say American tanks were influenced gradually from the original Renault F17s they acquired in the First World War. As I said, those things won the war in the end.
romanlegions 6 months ago
@romanlegions yeah, "won" the war but still were the most destroyed tank model in ww2. Russians are masters in copying things from others. Everybody knows the famous "russian" ak-47. Well, after the war russians captured many german workers/scientists who made/designed weapons etc. ak47 is a copy from mp44 or stg44.
MrTurpasauna 6 months ago
@MrTurpasauna Don't forget it was the Russians who did the most to defeat the Germans so not surprising they had the most destroyed tanks. The Russians destroyed more German tanks than other nations probably combined.The US also captured many german workers/scientists who made/designed weapons.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85
If landings at normandy had failed, so could the russian attack in the eastern front. i mean come on, US troops landed in france 1944 and year later they were almost at berlin. It took many years from russians to get there. Don't forget there wasn't only 1 front in the west. Western allies were fighting in africa and there were some brutal tank battles too, plus italy some time later. So i dont think that russians destroyed more german tanks.
MrTurpasauna 6 months ago
Comment removed
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@MrTurpasauna If Russian attacks failed D Day certainly would have. British, American and Canadian troops landed in France in 1944. The Russians turned the tide at Stalingrad and by Kursk the writing was on the wall. The Russians were fighting the bulk of the German army for years, the western allies were not. In Italy there were 25 allied divisions against 23 German when there was 220 German divisions on the eastern front not counting their allies. The Russians destroyed many more tanks.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85
Fail. Great britain, france/resistance etc. fought against germany from the year 1939. Germany and USSR were allies to year 1941. Usa started fighting against japan in the 1941 too. If the british defense had failed, germans would take over britain and then push all their forces to the soviet union. There were many tank battles in the western front, kursk is the only known battle from the east.
MrTurpasauna 6 months ago
@MrTurpasauna Yes I know Britain and the FF were fighting the Germans from the beginning, I meant along with the US and on a large scale. British Commonwealth was the main with the FF being few so few allies. There were many many tank battles on the eastern front, Kursk was only the largest. Russia made more tanks and tank killers than the US did and didn't share them with anyone, What do you suppose they did with them?
1Dougy85 6 months ago
@1Dougy85 the russians were also slaughtered ( more russian soldiers died then any other country ) also italy is much smaller then Russia and is easily defensible, making it a nightmare to attack, barely any room to maneuver and mountainous terrain, the germans didn't need that many units to hold italy, if you take the approximate size of the front line and divide by the number of units per mile of kilometer you'll find a much heavier concentration of germans in italy
eagleclawproduction1 3 months ago
@eagleclawproduction1 I agree with everything you say except the much heavier concentration of Germans in Italy. With German allies on the eastern front the axis concentration was the same as Italy. The point I was trying to make was the scale of war for the western allies was much smaller than on the eastern front.
1Dougy85 3 months ago
@1Dougy85 23 divisions covering a peninsula less then 40 miles wide, compared to 220 covering a front around 2,000 miles long, divide it up and you have a german division for about every 2 miles for italy and a german division every 9 miles for Russia - much heavier concentration
eagleclawproduction1 3 months ago
@eagleclawproduction1 Your math is good but your facts are off, 40 miles wide? At which point? The Gustav line was 90 miles coast to coast. The eastern front was 1,000 miles
1Dougy85 3 months ago
@1Dougy85 lets fact this in then, italy - 1 division for every 4.3 miles or so, russia - one division every 4.45 miles. well I guess the concentration wasn't all that much higher, so the germans where very equal with their distribution of troops, wait I forgot the italian units, I think they had 73 italian units backing them up, probably decreased to about 70 or maybe mid 60's, so lets say there was a total of 80-96 divisions facing the allies on italy, thats one division every mile
eagleclawproduction1 3 months ago
Comment removed
1Dougy85 3 months ago
@eagleclawproduction1 I think the Germans forgot the Italian units also. You think they had 73 Italian units backing them up? Not in Italy. Italy signed the armistice the same day the allies started to land in Italy and were disarmed. The Italian army even provided truck transport to some allies complete with drivers. There were some Italian soldiers that volunteered to fight for the Germans but numbered only a few battalions. Also Anzio beachhead lowered the German concentration at Gustav line.
1Dougy85 3 months ago
@1Dougy85 valid point, also only 20 italian units were fully manned and armed, and Antonio beach was a strategic move to help end the slaughter and stalemate of the gustav line ( monte cassino ) and they had 73 italian units at the begin, but it was probably more like 20 or less left do to the fact that 1. mst didn't even support the war, and 2. they are really bad at fighting, so lets call it 10 before the armistice, maybe 5 or 6 after ( or less )
eagleclawproduction1 3 months ago
@1Dougy85
I don't think the word "capture" is the right word to use here. Scientists like einstein escaped willingly to US during/after the war. And the scientists in usa actually accomplished something, like jet planes that everybody uses today to get to holidays etc. In russia they were seen as slaves and russians only made weapons for their own selfish needs.
MrTurpasauna 6 months ago
@MrTurpasauna The Russians destroyed 80% of the German army.
Einstein left before the war. Didn't the former German Nazis that the US captured make weapons for the US selfish needs? The German that designed the rocket that went to the moon was a Nazi. Thousands of nazis had their files changed by the US so they could be brought in and work. German scientists in Russia also accomplished something like jet planes and after many years they were allowed to go back to Germany if they wished.
1Dougy85 6 months ago
In December 41 the Russians had 2495 planes.
From December 41 to January 45 they produced 86098 planes but in the same time period the germans destroyed 93 800 planes!
2495+86098-93 800= - 5207!
But because GB/USA delivered 19707 planes in the same time period in January 45 the USSR had 14 500 planes.
The numbers for tanks are 1730+78298-78218=1810! because GB/USA delivered 11603 tanks in January the USSR had 12 500 tanks
Numbers from:Mark Harrison Soviet planning in peace and war p.264
Denorius01 1 year ago
Comment removed
Denorius01 1 year ago
According to the books I have read it seems that US Doctrin at that time stated Tank Destroyers not Tanks were to engage other Tanks thats why the Sherman had a "pop gun" when compared with theTigers & Panthers. On D-Day the only TANK the Priest & M10 being tank destroyers, able to knock out a Tiger or Panther was the Sherman Firefly. Partly for this reason the Brits & Canadians got to play primarily with the SS Panzer Divisions in Normandy. And before anyone starts yelling look it up...
TheBritishEngineer 1 year ago
good posting';-)
tacticalbattledroid 1 year ago
Crap tanks....but I love them!
Danny77uk 1 year ago
German Tanks very Quality tanks and theyre much more Beautiful. Tiger, Panthers and Panzer 4's and others just give me and Orgasmic Chill =P
BigNorwegianBear 1 year ago
The British people footing the bill for the Jewish war machine.
ReturnOfTheJosef 1 year ago
t-34 tanks were the best tanks of ww2
quest8899 1 year ago
jealous are we ss95123?
MOHAAVIDEO 1 year ago
Nice footage!
tankman13p66 1 year ago
Smashed on Vodka driving a Valentine. HA
JAGDPANTHER20 1 year ago
90% of nazi forces were not in tanks. In a lot of situations any tank is better than no tank.
IVANGROZNEY 2 years ago
Matilda mk II was good armored tank but gun was so weak.
m741ex 2 years ago
@m741ex Matilda gave Rommel a nasty start in 1940.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
Better than those clumsy Tiger Tanks.
LukeXgamer 2 years ago
It has been a great idea to sell the weak tanks to the russians, so the english army could get better tanks from USA, like the Sherman!
AnimePrayer 2 years ago
The British fiddled too much with obsolete ideas such as infantry support/cruiser etc.
Only at the end of the war they got it right resulting in the Centurion and the Archer SP. But let's not forget the Centaur and/or the Comet(same tank,different engine)
In the end they turned to the States for tanks (and cash).The M3 Lee at 1st and the M4 Sherman ;the latter later improved into a good British design: the Firefly with a 17-pounder gun, a match for the Panther!
ZerokillerOppel 2 years ago
you forgot the challanger.
i think it was a good tank
jinpoi 2 years ago
@ZerokillerOppel And if they had stopped bombing Germany, the ReichsKriegsFahne would fly over Washington. Yep we paid a tank crew price but you bastards lost. Think about it!!!!!! If there is be a 1000 year Reich, it might be achieved in 2066. :-)
rmjackaman 11 months ago
mate, the sherman was also horrible tank
it could only fight from long distances
jinpoi 2 years ago
yeah, but much better than the low-armed english tanks
AnimePrayer 2 years ago
i didnt say that the sherman was worse than the british tanks.the only good british tanks were the comet, centaur , the challanger,and the firefly.
jinpoi 2 years ago
It is always interesting to observe how the trully ignorant feel no shame at expressing their opinions on subjects they have no real knowledge of. The British aid coming as it did when the Russian's had almost collapsed and being thrown into the Battle for Moscow helped save the Soviets from an early defeat and allow themn to relocate thier factories and begin to churn out the T-34's and KV's that won the ground war for them.
scottduncan44 2 years ago
I know that, but fact is the english tanks were no match for the germans, til the firefly came on battlefield.
AnimePrayer 2 years ago
@scottduncan44 I'm not ignorant in these matters and not without shame and I agree on all of your points but the fact remains that the British tanks were obsolete in design (armourthickness-armament etc) how very welcome the aid ofcourse was to the Soviets.
ZerokillerOppel 2 years ago
@AnimePrayer sherman was a paper tiger against the panther and tigers,
too small a gun and thin armor plus too much high profile.
only 2 things were going for it was numbers and manouverabality.
and as Zerokiller said we installed the 17 pndr into it,
take your anomosity somwhere else
MOHAAVIDEO 1 year ago
@AnimePrayer sherman was a paper tiger against the panther and tigers,
too small a gun and thin armor plus too much high profile.
only 2 things were going for it was numbers and manouverabality.
and as Zerokiller said we installed the 17 pndr into it,
take your anomosity somwhere else
MOHAAVIDEO 1 year ago
@MOHAAVIDEO The Sherman was the best tank in the world, in 1941 and early 1942. It soldiered on through the rest of the war, and still provided useful tactical advantages in 1945, such as superior ability to fire on the move with a stabilized gun and fast electric traverse.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Sooo drink koolaid much? The Sherman was a plentiful tank but no where near as great a tank as you might be led to believe. Belton Cooper who was part of the Maintenance Corp during WW2 said the the Sherman was a very poor joke of a tank. He was the one who had to refurbish the hulk after it was brought in for repairs. They often had to hose out the remains of the crew and repaint the inside. Read your History better there slick. One word.... Ronson.....
3shacks1house 1 year ago
@3shacks1house So let me know when you find a WWII german tank with stabilized gun. Sherman tanks did burn, but German and Soviet tanks which took hits to ammunition bunkers detonated. Tanks in WWII were dangerous places to be. So was the infantry. Your point?
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker point was the sherman had a reputation of "brewing up" above all the other tanks used by British forces (different engine layout? ) to the point they were nicknamed "ronsons" - a lighter -"lights every time", it wasn't just a british bias the Germans also dubbed the sherman "the tommy-cooker" and US refusal to up-gun it with the 17 pounder was just prideful stupidity with costed lives in normandy
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 Early sherman had two very bad shot traps just in front of the driver/assistant driver. Later sherman fixed that. US ammunition did burn (deflagrate) and later wet storage addressed it. Other tanks usually detonated if the ammunition was hit. US didn't refuse to up gun it with 17pdr, but rather upgunned it with 76mm gun (reengineered 3 inch) like the M-18 tank destroyer. 17 pdr was not stabilized, and so couldnt shoot on the move.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker I'm sure all tanks would burn once the ammo was hit , the sherman had a reputation of burning easier than other's And yes the US did up-gun AFTER they were murdered by about 60 tigers/panthers post D-Day, point is US refused to fit the proven-available 17 Lb'r -fooled around with the 90mm and then fitted the 76mm (even though it was a inferior tank-killing weapon than the 17 Lb'r ). after the british had been proved right, the bias against the 17 Lb'r was political
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 May have been political. Britain was pretty sorely pressed at that point, and I wonder what the logistics were of shipping Brit guns to the US at that stage in the war. In Italy the Panthers like the Tigers in Africa were encountered and resolved. The Allies were suprised by the production rate of the panther, wrongly thinking that they were just another heavy tank to be produced in small numbers. Don't know the interaction between that realization and lead time for production.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
Why make 17 lb'rs in the UK? packard were making merlins, Canadians were building hurricanes , mossie's and lanc's simpler to make under licence in the US, common ammo less supply lines prob's, better gun , ready to go, give the poor tanker's a fighting chance , instead of losing 4-10 shermans per tiger
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 US doctrine during the war was to use tank destroyers against tanks, and US officers saw combat in that way. with the 75mm high explosive round to be used against infantry. When losses in Normandy and larger production numbers of Panther became apparent, the 76mm gun was already in production, rather than retool for 17 pounder
Certainly Britain was very generous with intellectual property during the war. Why was the 17 pounder not fitted to more British tanks?
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Yes and the Tank destroyer was proved wrong at Kasserine Pass
same as the british Infantry/cruiser tank doctrine had failed in the battle of france resulting in the Centurion- "tank universal"
the 76mm developed in mid 42- the 17 Lb'r was aready a combat field gun,
already proven better
early british tank were up-guned to their limit (2 lb'r to 6 lb'r /US 75mm) but the mid war designs(43-45 tanks) comet,cromwell,challenger (centurion late) had 17ld'rs (or HV 77mm)
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 Tank destroyers at Kasserine were M-3 halftracks with 75mm guns. Not bad armament for 1942 when the british tanks had 6 pounders. The M-10 came out soon after and had 3 inch antiaircraft guns, which served well through Italy. The 76 was designed as a product improved 3 inch to fit in the M-18 Hornet. The 76mm gun was on 2000 M-4s provided to Soviets, and had better armor penetration than the T-34s 85mm gun. The M-36 Jackson came out with a 90mm just before the 40 Pershing tanks.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
same thing applies the M-10 in British service also was give the better 17-pounder (like the Archer ) (M-18 was the hellcat wasn't it?) my point was as US copied the 6-pounder (57mm) as an anti-tank gun WHY they dropped the better ,proven & available 17-pounder in preference to 76mm?,
re-tooling doesn’t really explain it - the British had less capacity to convert than the US already and still did.
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 Interesting. The 3 inch antiaircraft gun (father of the 76mm) was certainly adequate to 1943, and it may be that successful experience and wrong expectations for future led to the idea that a better cannon between the 76 and 90mm was perhaps not a good investment. There was a prototype of the 90mm gun on a M-18 chassis (muzzlebrake was very much necessary) and the jackson fielded over 300 90mm guns in theater fairly quickly once the need was realized. (yes, M-18 was hellcat)
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
the 17-pounder is hardly "between" them, 90mm's penetration power is only a few mm more, given the 90mm would have needed a new turret(on the Sherman), as the 76mm needed chopping and a balance weight, the 17-pounder is the obvious choice to go with during wartime,
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 The 17 pounder also needed a balance weight. The choice is not obvious to me. It was a tradeoff. The 17 pounder didn't have a high explosive round, and US doctrine emphasized the use of tanks with high explosive rounds against infantry in the attack, That makes the tradeoff more interesting.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker
May have needed a balance, but it didn't need shortening like the 76mm (10% loss) it had a hi-ex round- just not a great one While the 76mm AP had a fuse problem which rendered it ineffective
The allies KNEW that there were going to be panthers and tigers in Normandy , and that there were more nearby, they went to a great deal of trouble, disrupting the railways to slow them down, given that knowledge I'd want a gun that can kill a tiger- dead tanks cant help Infantry
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 76mm guns with the Tungsten Carbide cap had adequate penetration. Creighton Abrams came up with tactics that made even the 75mm Sherman a winner. Those tactics just happened to be the ones that were in line with US doctrine, attacking infantry, penetrating, then letting the enemy tanks spear themselves on US tank destroyers. I suppose we could have delayed the invasion for a year, but that would have given Jerry a chance to make even bigger badder tanks.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker , Trouble is
a, M4's weren't issued with tungsten rounds anyway
b, the 76mm tungsten rounds were only as effective than the 17 lb'ers capped AP rounds,even the 6-pounders tunsten round could match it, the 17 lb'ers tungsten round could penetrate 200mm(-ish)
they could'nt really put off D-day after the build-up, and they would have met the same tanks in N Italy anyway,
&
more V1 & 2's fired, more of Europe in soviets hands post VE day OR nukes dropped on germany
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 Or another deal between the Soviets and the Nazis. Once again, the 17 lbder was between the much larger 90mm gun and the 3 inch gun in effectiveness. A trade off between which you put on your tanks, how many you have, and when you get them. US doctrine was to use HE rounds against infantry for tanks and Armor piercing rounds against tanks with tank destroyers. And surprise surprise, the US armor chose the better HE round.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker No, the 17 pounder was trial'd agaist the 76mm (by Gen delves?) which somehow came up with the odd result that the 76mm AP was as good as the 17Lber (surprise-surprise)
the 90mm was still in development and again needed a new turret , and was still only barely better than the 17Lber,
OK - given US doctrine - why wasn't the 17Lber fitted to US TD's anyway?
British TD's were artillery troops,and still fitted 17lbers in peference, even if it did reduce their HE support role
farmerned6 1 year ago
@farmerned6 The 17 pounder was fitted to US tanks and antitank guns, and employed by the British with good effect. US artillery units had better radio communications than British, Soviet, or German and accordingly were more effective in indirect fire. US TD units in Italy spent much of their time shooting HE rounds. (Congress had limited large caliber artillery production, unhappy that so much had been moved to Africa, and wanted ammunition already produced to be used.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@farmerned6 An appreciation of Soviet tanks can be gleaned from a Russian book about the US shermans which served with Soviets. The author really liked the Sherman, and served in them from Poland to Manchuria, having previously served in T-34s. He is my favorite source on Soviet tank ammunition detonating.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@MOHAAVIDEO Did the 17 pounder gun keep the gun stabilization system that the 75 and 76 mm Shermans had?
The high profile of the Sherman was useful in the Hedgerows. The high profile was due to using an aircraft engine as power plant, which gave it its high reliability.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
Covenanter - thats English for "useless waste of time and resources". We made some appalling tanks during WW2 but Covenanter was without doubt THE WORST. I too though they all stayed here.
SONOR4 2 years ago
The British Tanks are weak against German tanks.
ss95123 2 years ago 6
@ss95123 Agreed, but her people don`t share the same flaw as you have found out, twice
Tote1883gas 8 months ago in playlist British & commonwealth Armour
@ss95123 thats not strictly true. in africa the british matilda and crusader tanks were just a match for the panzer 2 and 3's. also later in the war the brits took the american sherman tank and modified it using basically a sawn off 17 pounder AT gun, which proved deadly against even tiger and panthers. and even later came the comet cruiser tank which had a similar gun but used different high velocity armour piercing rounds. there were bad british tanks yes but also effective ones.
dappadan22 7 months ago
@ss95123 but it some help!!!! british could kick german ass with this tanks but russians said they are useless ok thank you!!!
90magor 7 months ago
Great video you post! We must remeber what happend from 1939-1945 so it don't happend agian.
torgeirp 2 years ago
Hmm I thout Covenanter never left british isles...
nikolas93ts 2 years ago