@planeguy52 Exactly. The Shermans crews suffered terribly because of the armored doctrine and logistics scheme established by some idiots who never fought in a war. And they didn't want to listen to those who fought and knew what they were talking about either. The Sherman should've been at least supplemented, from 1943 by the T-20 tanks. But that idiotic doctrine that didn't allow tan vs tank engagements prevented the T20 to be adopted.
@TheOwie15 it was a terrible tank! It was nicknamed by the Germans as the 'Tommy Cooker', because it had the terrible flaw of setting on fire very easily. There was a documentary that is saw, were they fought with real tanks (obviously not actual fighting), and the Sherman's gun just bounced of the armour of the Panther. When it fired back, it's shell went straight through the front armour, hit the ammunition, and the tank exploded. The t-34 was cheaper, and better by far. Good Design
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Thats only true for the early versions of the sherman! Later versions had a wet stowage that prevented the ammunition to explode and pretty reliable too...though not as reliable as the T-34! With the longer 76mm gun later M4A3(76)W shermans for example were roughly on par with the T-34/85 but T-34/85 simply were far more numerous than M4A3(76)W because of the inferior american doctrine!
good reliable medium tank. BUT, muzzle velocity and defense was an issue for these little buggers. the germans relied too much on making Cadillac (my way of saying exquisite tanks) that cost too much and were produced in too little numbers. the sheer number of t34's and sherman's produced lost the nazi's the war. why didn't the allies use camo though. biggest blunder to my dad who served in Europe under patton's third army. good question to ask. cheers and thanks for the vid!
Read .."seven roads to hell"...a true first hand account and see what 15, 10th AD Sherman's and a under strength regiment of ill equipped 101st paratroopers and 4 M36 Jacksons did to the mighty German 2nd panzer division and it's panthers and tigers during the battle of Noville Dec19,1944. Over 35 German tanks destroyed to 11 USA, The fact is American tankers just out fought, out shot and out maneuvered and out tanked the Germans end of story. Also Americans had no air support.
If you want to read a good book on how the Sherman fared against the Tiger and other German tanks, you should pick up "Death Traps". It was written by an army maintenance officer who had to go out and collect destroyed Shermans after a battle and try and get them back into the fight. He truly saw the carnage Sherman crews had to endure. He basically blames Patton for pushing a faster more medium tank at the beginning of the war instead of a heavier tank like the Sheridan.
Sherman is a joke. It is no match for a Panzer IV and Tiger is overpowered compared to the Sherman. Sherman was only effective against the Panzer III and below and the Japanese tanks. But heck even the Japanese started to produce better tanks at the end of the war. Only the M26 Pershing would gain any foot hold against German tanks but still Panther would shred it
@SMGJohn The Japanese never really produced a superior vehicle to the M4 Medium and the M4 Medium was always on par with or superior to the Pz.Kpfw IV. The only vehicle in its class that the Sherman had notable problems fighting was the Panther, and that isn't exclusive to the Sherman. T-34-84, Cromwell, Sherman, Pz.Kpfw IV - they were all inferior medium tanks to the Panther in a tank dual scenario.
@SMGJohn I think you might be talking crap, which mark of the sherman are you saying is shit exactly? There was more than one some of the later of which had thicker armour, not to mention variations such as the firefly which had a far superior gun to the panzer 4 and arguably the panther.
And the japanese never really produced anything note worthy as far as tanks go. The pershing was also proved as a match for the panther but obviously not enough numbers were produced to be truely effective
@PhilosopherGaming Actually the Japanese produced better tanks then Sherman at the end of the war go do some resource before you open your gum. The Sherman no mather what version was inferior to German tank design as German tanks was always upgraded and got better and better. Sure the latest Sherman might be effective and side on side against an old Pz.Kpfw 4 but not the upgraded ones
@SMGJohn research, if youre going to patronise me at least make sure you know what youre actually saying ... I never said that the sherman tank design was superior to that of german designs, but they upgraded ones (such as the firefily) could take out a panzer 4, look up the british 17pdr gun
And I didnt say the japanese didnt create more powerful tanks towards the wars end, I said they made nothing note worthy, they had some good ones but they were a bit late to count
@SMGJohn You stupid shit. Japan's only "good" responses happened in 1943/44, and only could be used for home-island guards. Also, bolted armor isn't exactly "good." Also, Shermans raped the Panzer IIIs/IV specials with a weapon capable of knocking out 60mms of armor at 1,000 meters, had better early protection, good spaced compartments, American variants with good ammo protection (In comparison to Brittish tommies, who tended to leave ammunition exposed wherever they could cram it.).
@Tyco200 I am not sure if you bothered to research any history at all...
Type 3 Chi-Nu would clearly be a fair match for Sherman, Type 4 Chi-To would smash the Sherman and
Type 5 Chi-Ri would turn the Sherman and even the damn Pershing into dust. Problem was the Japanese didn't have industry capacity to produce these tanks in fair numbers and not even making them face combat at the end of war but they would crush the Americans.
@SMGJohn Also note the simple fact that the 76mm equipped M4A1s faced better than any other tank, and could easily slaughter the Tiger/Panthers well over 1,000 meters (And even beyond the highest hits, recorded 1,200-400 meters with HVAP!). M4A3E8s, by War's end, were the best of any tank in the world. PS: Japan failed in tank tech. 75mm build variants they built were puny, worthless, oversized, pigstys. :)!
@Tyco200 I dunno if you realize this but no, the 76mm was underpowered and had serious problem against Tiger and Panther in the war. Only at the late of the war when the M26 Pershing came the Americans could finely have a fair match against the late Panther but even then the Panther II was in production. And no the best tank of the war was T-44 you imbecile however it saw little to non combat at the end of the war. The tank is seen as standard design of modern tank.
@PhilosopherGaming Exactly! The Panther couldn't fire a high explosive for the life of it, had so many teething problems and was so bad yet had so much potential, it caused more problems for the Germans than it did good! The Sherman with a 76mm M1 easily knocked the damn thing out, provided it hit its muzzle at 1,200 meters. Some hit records show Panthers being knocked out at 1,400 meters. 51-68mms slopped protection was equal, and better than anything for a medium tank in 1942.
@Tyco200 well I wouldnt say the panther was a bad tank at any stretch of the imagination or that upgraded shermans could EASILY knock one out since the panther was arguabley the best medium tank of the war (in terms of armour and firepower) but yeah I agree the upgunned shermans were capable of holding their own in terms of armament and the panthers complexity did cause the germans more harm than good in the long run
they might as well have continued with the panzer 4 line, much safer bet
@SMGJohn You stupid shit. You apparently have to knowledge do you? M4A1 w/76mm 1942 could slaughter the Tiger/Panthers well over 1,000 meters. Also note how the Sherman with a 75 actually got the better of the Panzer IV, and could actually duel with infantry as well! Panzer IV F2. was a failure in armor protection with only 45mms of unslopped armor (As bad as the T-34 pigsty in the East!) Even the Ausf.H was in danger at 800 meters with the 75. PS.75M3 had a penetration of about 60mms at 1,000m.
@Tyco200 Sure the Panzer IV was outdated but later Pzkf IV models where better and had sloped armor and heavier gun. I wouldn't say the 76mm could take out a Tiger do you have any idea how much the Americans suffered in trying to take out one? Sure the Shermans 76mm gun was maybe able to take a Tiger out by shooting at certain weak points such as back and places on the sides. And no the T-34/76 is better then Sherman in many ways. And the T-34/85
@SMGJohn From what i know, the only 2 versions of the Germans that stood any chance against the Germans tanks, were the Sherman Jumbo, and the Sherman Firefly, as obviously both were up gunned The 17-pounder fitted to the firefly was certainly capable of taking out a Tiger (in 1 famous case, a British Firefly took out 3 tigers in one battle). But the rest of the tank (especially the armour) was fairly terrible. The 17-pounder gun did far better in the Comet and the mark.VII Churchill.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx One T-34/85 once took out 3 King Tigers, One T-34/85 took out 5 Tigers and 10 Panzer IV alone. Yet the allies couldn't fucking produce a decent tanks. Even though the T-34 was in 1944 already 10 years old design
@SMGJohn That's certainly very true, they also made 35,000 T34-85s, so they certainly had a lot of good tanks. From what i know, the T34 really did pioneer sloped armour.
@SMGJohn That´s not entirely correct! The T-34, apart from its designation, was designed from 1937-1939! First production models were build in 1940 and from 1940 on to 1943 there were several different versions of the T-34/76 with different guns and turrets! The T-34/85 on the other hand was not designed/produced until 1943/44...so the age of the final design in 1944 was at most 4 years old!
@MappyKeyes As we say in us the right tnak for the wrong war we thought we would be comeing up against infantry and light and medium panzer 4,s and 3 tanks but when the tier and panther's where made we made pershing and a t29 and modified sherans into easy 8 tank t14's and jumbos but then the war ended only one of those tanks saw action in ww2 pershing vrs panther pershing won
@HaiPeoplez Can't be the A3E8. It had a longer barrel and different suspension on the "Easy Eight". The M4A2E4 is possible since it was just an upgraded suspension version but was not put into production. An lastly that is certainly not the "Jumbo" Sherman M4A3E2
First one i believe the the "Jumbo" Sherman, so no to that one. the E8 had different boogies and a high velocity gun, so no. And no on the last, so, yeah isn't a M4A1 Sherman, but it isn't any of those either.
@SpadXIIIFlyer It's not a jumbo (much much larger) or an easy eight (It had vertical suspension bogies without the track blocks up top). It's just a regular ol non-special variant run of the mill M4 :D
@Naxorex94 Yeah thats a veerrry kind thing to say even though a lot of men fought and gave thier lives while fighting with that tank so we all can live in freedom. Yeah nice comment asshole!
@Naxorex94 Wow, you mean a Sherman's rape-toy? Sherman 76mm by 1942 could easily rape the Tiger well over a thousand meters. They didn't under perform against Panthers, either, and were the nightmares for the crews of Panzer IVs. Sad minded, horribly misinformed idiots who watch discovery, like you, obviously wouldn't understand facts. The Sherman matched all known Russian MBTs well into even the 70s (T-72A being the last to be destroyed by the 105s.) Sherman = A Legend.
@Tyco200 LOL fail much!? Sherman was crushed by T-55 so shut up. Sherman against T-72? Gotta be one hell of a Sherman packed with 50 ton depleted uranium armor and a 500mm guided missile on top of it just to stand a fucking chance.
@Naxorex94 Also note how fragile and how slow the pathetic Tiger was. Tigers had a horrible turret-traverse speed, could not turn suddenly to an enemy without risking the loss of a wheel, had relatively flawed armor in comparison to the excellent 51mms of slopping armor, took too much time, and were the mistake of Germany. Panzer IVs, the true tanks of Germany, unfortunately lacked the superiority they faced in the Sherman (Better speeds, equal handling, better armor until Ausf H., better gun.)
@gxz100 Die Tiger kamen in der Schlacht um Tunesien zum Einsatz, wo sie allen alliierten Panzern weit überlegen waren. Selbst aus geringster Entfernung konnte der M3-Panzer die Tiger-Panzerung nicht durchschlagen. Auch der immer häufiger auftretende M4 Sherman konnte die Panzerung des Tigers von allen Seiten unter normalen Umständen nicht durchschlagen, während die Tiger problemlos die alliierten Panzer auch auf größere Entfernung ausschalten konnten. Im to lazy to translate it do it for urself!
What a peice of crap the Sherman tank was,lol. The nazis had the panzer and the tiger. Those were the two best tanks in the world at the time. The problem for the nazi's was that we could churn out like 100 shermans a day against their one or two panzer/tigers a day. It was the ford assembly lines that crushed the nazis. HOOAH!!
@TecZero1000 Not MY opinion. Every expert on all sides at the time agreed that the germans had the most advanced tanks. It's not an opinion, it's fact.
@Nakor420ish ... not really, the t-28 had the the heaviest armor and the crocodile had steel melting flamethrower that stuck to everything, and the shermans had enough turrets and hulls built to make a berlin wall of tanks, while the germans built 1 a day the americans built 100 a day
@TecZero1000 The only thing that's true here is the allied mass production compared to the German war industry. You can't compare the t-28 with German tanks because it was never used in world war 2. Steel melting flamethrower is just bullshit, this can only disable the tank not melt it. Churchill was more infantry support, it could not deal with German armor. The 2 tanks that you just mentioned are both slow as hell, what makes them useless compared to German steel.
@Zfk41 actually the melting point of steel or armor is about 2500 degrees F, so i can be possible, but yes the t-28 super heavy was post warfare, according to the testing, it can stand up to the big tanks
@TecZero1000 Scrathing paint on 100MM armor is something else then melting a tank, this is something that couldn't happen for real. And you said 'according to the testing', wich was propably done by the US, wich means that there is a big chance that the test results are full of lies and propaganda, just like most history books/sites nowadays. Also, tests are based on reality, but they can not guarantee all the results+by the time the t28 was ready, the Germans would have something more superior.
@Zfk41 i will give you the first one. but the more superior german tank will only be a dream, they wanted a tank the size of the D.O.R.A. Railway gun but it needs metal, fuel, ammo and supplies. all things they were lacking, its just like the american war in the middle east right now. fighting for oil, its a need we can't live without
@Zfk41 We didn't need something "superior." Sherman Jumbo, E8 and the A1 with a 76 would cook the panther at about 1,600 meters. It was also the tiger killer/panzer IV's worst nightmare. To think of needing another tank is quite bullshit. Also, American testing full of lies? Really? How about Russian? Last time I checked, the T-34-85's gun was actually shittier than the Sherman's 76mm. 76 was comparable to most guns of Germany, including then Panther's. ;)
@Tyco200Ofcourse the US didn't need 'superior' tanks because they were able to mass produce and replace/repair destroyed vehicles quickly. And i don't think that 'Tigers worst nightmare' is a good description, ofcourse it's possible that it was a tough verhicle to encounter compared to other US vehicles, but i still think their crew would rather be in a Tiger I. And i said that the testing was full of lies because, as you probably know; History is written by the victors and is mostly exaggerated
@Zfk41 Not to mention the fact that a Sherman with the 76mm or a Sherman with the firefly (2,000 built versus 1,200 tigers) were superior to anything of their type, or at least able to deal with those kinds of tanks... Either way, Churchill was a disaster. Infantry support tank with literally useless flat plates of armor unable to stop even the slow Tiger... Disaster...
@Tyco200 The Sherman with the 76MM gun still had to come very close to weak spots to had a chance of penetration. The Firefly was able to penetrate Tiger I's armor from longer distances, but the only thing they were superior compared to the Tiger was mass production (and maybe mobility, because it was a med), Tiger I had a better gun, thicker armor, better crew (mostly) and were able to target and engage an enemy quicker because of better RF, Periscope and radio equipment
@Nakor420ish The sherman is in fact the best meduim tank of world war 2. Now look at that sentence closley. It was the best meduim tank keyword meduim. Of course the sherman would get destroyed by a fucking heavy tank because it a fucking heavy tank, and i get so pissed at the government back then for making our soldiers fight heavy tanks with meduim ones. We could have wiated 6 months to make a lot of pershing heavy tanks. see that the pershing was americas heavy tank.
@blazingkhalif2 The Pershing was classified as a Heavy before the End of WWII, but afterwards it was 'demoted' to a Medium Tank (a quite good one btw)
While everyone talks about the T34, the T34 this, T34 that, the M4 was on par, if not better in some ways. The M4 had far better reliability, better tracks, a more reliable engine, more slope on the rear armor, and slightly heavier frontal armor. It also had much better gunsights. T34 had sloped side armor, was a lower target, and didn't burn as much.
We pumped out 50,000 of these M4s in maybe 2 or 3 years, with half of our steel going to warships at the same time! Pretty damn good tank.
@yamahabobwv Yeah at the cost of thousands of Shermans being blown to bits along with their crews, thanks to the German Panthers and Tigers and 88mm flak artillery, thats why it had the nickname TOMMY COOKER and RONSON LIGHTER, because it allways lit up and blew up with one shot from the enemy, too thin of armour, and too high a profile=easy target.
THESE ARE LUCKY MEN ,.... I got a job for you in my yard cause pest plant is taking over... lol - No, nice to see them old dogs still running like that COOL !
Great footage railnwings. Thanks for posting. I've just uploaded footage of a couple of Shermans at the Military and Flying Machines show at Upminister last week.
Its not a tin can, only to a few of the heavier german tanks/tank destroyers with 75mm guns or larger. Shermans equipped with the longer 76mm cannon were often comparable to the germans most produced tank of the war, the panzer IV. The Sherman does not suck compared to other "medium" tanks. If anything its the best mediun tank of the war aside from the T-34. If you want to compare the "heavy" tiger to something then compare it to the M29 Pershing.
Respond to this video... I dont know if this sherman was repowered with a Ford V8 but if it has the original motor its either a radial 8 or 9 I dont remember wich
Everything the Tigers and Panthers were the Sherman wasn't. They were big, Heavy and not very maneuverable and unreliable. The Sherman was a small quick tank that can out flank a Tiger or Panther and (when not getting blown up) very reliable. See exact opposites
@lfcdave8 actually the shermans were destroying german tanks in africa. The only reason the started to suffer in europe is because they only fought heavy tanks. So of course the sherman gets destroyed, it's only a medium tank.
The Sherman was a great tank...after she was upgraded...the M4A3 had much thicker armour and a more powerful 76mm cannon, the M36 had a 90mm M3 cannon, the British Firefly and the Israli Isherman were also some good tanks
@ben191209 Poor Range, Poor Armor, Poor Fire Power...Amazing Speed for its time and you can't hit what you can't catch so you either catch it by surprise or lure it into a trap how ever as long as its crew is stilled neither will be a easy task. Simple terms the Tiger had the power to destroy it but not the speed and the Sherman had the speed to catch a Tiger but not the fire power destroy it.
@XxxSakura101 There were three different one's, they use a radial air cooled aircraft engine, an all aluminum V8, and a five bank of six cylinder Chrysler engines. Ford may have built the V8, but I don't know. My second cousin commanded a Sherman in The Bulge, and I worked with a ww2 Army mechanic in the seventies.
Hunnicutt's very well researched "Pershing"--the standard reference book on this tank--states that no encounter between the Super-Pershing and a King Tiger occurred. Hunnicutt's book was written in 1971, but it is quite explicit in documenting Pershing kills (including pictures that exist) as well as battle damage suffered by Pershings and contains a complete listing of the units employing the tank and acccounts including its Pacific service.
i have read from many sources that the pershing suffered from being underpowered and prone to transmission failures until after the war. i could be wrong, but its just what i remember. the sherman was an ok tank, but by wars end was clearly out dated and needed an armor and gun upgrade. it didnt do well against the panther unless it flanked the tank. even the MK IV asf G model could tear a sherman apart. the problem was the U.S. refused to accept the fact it needed a re-design.
That doesn't mean the Sherman, or any other tank that faced Tigers and Panthers for that matter, where "shitty", as you so eloquently put it... That is a shortsighted, uninformed, woefully ignorant assumption to make.
issue 3 i have is that no tiger II would move closer at point blank range and expose its underbelly by climbing over a pile of rubble. clearly the rubble was cover, why move? tigers were only given to the best tank crews, not newbs. there are no photos of this "kill". how could propaganda miss out here? but yet, no photos exist. thats just my point of view. they probably engaged a panther and mistook it for a tiger II.
It could be either an M4 (air cooled radial engine), M4A2 (twin GM diesel engines), or M4A3 (Ford GAA petrol engine). All three are almost visually identical and are difficult to tell apart. The M4A1 can be ruled out since it had the single piece cast hull of a more rounded appearance.
In my opinion, the Americans and Russians were best at making tanks because they made cheap, efficient tanks which won the war unlike the glorified junks of Germany which were intimidation but ultimately lost the war.
And lets not get started on how both Americans and Russians started to produce tanks which dwarfed the Tiger and Tiger-2 in every way before the end of the war. (ex. Pershings and IS-3s)
@dlxowns322 russian armor was brittle and prone to spalling. so the round doesnt pierce, it still kills the crew. if the german tanks were junk like you clearly believe, than tell me why our tanks dont use bulldozer contolls anymore? or why do MBT's use torsion bar suspensions? the tiger I was very reliable by wars end, and so was panther. tiger II, not so much, but thats due to her weight. research man, dont go off hearsay. the pershing you mention was crap, and wasnt a match for the tiger II.
Cool tank.....I want one.
mixup98 2 weeks ago
He's drifting ;)
djbanizza 3 weeks ago
@planeguy52 Exactly. The Shermans crews suffered terribly because of the armored doctrine and logistics scheme established by some idiots who never fought in a war. And they didn't want to listen to those who fought and knew what they were talking about either. The Sherman should've been at least supplemented, from 1943 by the T-20 tanks. But that idiotic doctrine that didn't allow tan vs tank engagements prevented the T20 to be adopted.
StiviGun1 3 weeks ago
emm，it is pretty fast。
SuperVicepoint 4 weeks ago
She is such a beauty
ProjectWolve 1 month ago
I want to see Sherman in Polish colours!
todeusz 1 month ago
well at least it took care of the japanese tanks in the pacific
icytadbull 1 month ago
Good tank just wasnt the right tank as itself (not production rate) wasnt the right tank agianst the German heavy tanks
TheOwie15 1 month ago
@TheOwie15 it was a terrible tank! It was nicknamed by the Germans as the 'Tommy Cooker', because it had the terrible flaw of setting on fire very easily. There was a documentary that is saw, were they fought with real tanks (obviously not actual fighting), and the Sherman's gun just bounced of the armour of the Panther. When it fired back, it's shell went straight through the front armour, hit the ammunition, and the tank exploded. The t-34 was cheaper, and better by far. Good Design
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 1 month ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Thats only true for the early versions of the sherman! Later versions had a wet stowage that prevented the ammunition to explode and pretty reliable too...though not as reliable as the T-34! With the longer 76mm gun later M4A3(76)W shermans for example were roughly on par with the T-34/85 but T-34/85 simply were far more numerous than M4A3(76)W because of the inferior american doctrine!
c4blew 1 month ago
wow it's fast!
Let's kick some Tigers in the ass!
gxz100 2 months ago
@gxz100 right.... have fun with that, get a time machine and let me know how it turns out
MARINECORPS1251 1 month ago
sherman like like!!
TheYAMAKAK 2 months ago
good reliable medium tank. BUT, muzzle velocity and defense was an issue for these little buggers. the germans relied too much on making Cadillac (my way of saying exquisite tanks) that cost too much and were produced in too little numbers. the sheer number of t34's and sherman's produced lost the nazi's the war. why didn't the allies use camo though. biggest blunder to my dad who served in Europe under patton's third army. good question to ask. cheers and thanks for the vid!
tlv156 2 months ago
So many shit-house war historians posting here...lol
BlameRepublicans 2 months ago
Thanks for setting the record straight. Too many negative comments seem to be based on video games--not the facts.
railnwings 2 months ago
Read .."seven roads to hell"...a true first hand account and see what 15, 10th AD Sherman's and a under strength regiment of ill equipped 101st paratroopers and 4 M36 Jacksons did to the mighty German 2nd panzer division and it's panthers and tigers during the battle of Noville Dec19,1944. Over 35 German tanks destroyed to 11 USA, The fact is American tankers just out fought, out shot and out maneuvered and out tanked the Germans end of story. Also Americans had no air support.
OutKastSS 2 months ago
Comment removed
possumGFX 2 months ago
@OutKastSS lol
possumGFX 2 months ago
Sounds like it's starving for gas on idle. Maybe they need to rebuild the engine, or adjust the mixture.
Lukos0036 3 months ago
@Lukos0036 Thats the way a well tuned Ford V8 sounds in a M4 Sherman T.
williamblair11 2 months ago
@williamblair11 you do know the sherman was powered by an aircraft engine right?
MARINECORPS1251 1 month ago
If you want to read a good book on how the Sherman fared against the Tiger and other German tanks, you should pick up "Death Traps". It was written by an army maintenance officer who had to go out and collect destroyed Shermans after a battle and try and get them back into the fight. He truly saw the carnage Sherman crews had to endure. He basically blames Patton for pushing a faster more medium tank at the beginning of the war instead of a heavier tank like the Sheridan.
odflyer1 3 months ago
Why didnt it set on fire and burn all the crew?
chainedtoaradiator 3 months ago
Nice Toy
Auser001 3 months ago
Sherman horse power!
shabooba1988 3 months ago
Sherman is a joke. It is no match for a Panzer IV and Tiger is overpowered compared to the Sherman. Sherman was only effective against the Panzer III and below and the Japanese tanks. But heck even the Japanese started to produce better tanks at the end of the war. Only the M26 Pershing would gain any foot hold against German tanks but still Panther would shred it
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@SMGJohn The Japanese never really produced a superior vehicle to the M4 Medium and the M4 Medium was always on par with or superior to the Pz.Kpfw IV. The only vehicle in its class that the Sherman had notable problems fighting was the Panther, and that isn't exclusive to the Sherman. T-34-84, Cromwell, Sherman, Pz.Kpfw IV - they were all inferior medium tanks to the Panther in a tank dual scenario.
revolrz22 3 months ago
@SMGJohn I think you might be talking crap, which mark of the sherman are you saying is shit exactly? There was more than one some of the later of which had thicker armour, not to mention variations such as the firefly which had a far superior gun to the panzer 4 and arguably the panther.
And the japanese never really produced anything note worthy as far as tanks go. The pershing was also proved as a match for the panther but obviously not enough numbers were produced to be truely effective
PhilosopherGaming 3 months ago
@PhilosopherGaming Actually the Japanese produced better tanks then Sherman at the end of the war go do some resource before you open your gum. The Sherman no mather what version was inferior to German tank design as German tanks was always upgraded and got better and better. Sure the latest Sherman might be effective and side on side against an old Pz.Kpfw 4 but not the upgraded ones
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@SMGJohn research, if youre going to patronise me at least make sure you know what youre actually saying ... I never said that the sherman tank design was superior to that of german designs, but they upgraded ones (such as the firefily) could take out a panzer 4, look up the british 17pdr gun
And I didnt say the japanese didnt create more powerful tanks towards the wars end, I said they made nothing note worthy, they had some good ones but they were a bit late to count
PhilosopherGaming 3 months ago
@SMGJohn You stupid shit. Japan's only "good" responses happened in 1943/44, and only could be used for home-island guards. Also, bolted armor isn't exactly "good." Also, Shermans raped the Panzer IIIs/IV specials with a weapon capable of knocking out 60mms of armor at 1,000 meters, had better early protection, good spaced compartments, American variants with good ammo protection (In comparison to Brittish tommies, who tended to leave ammunition exposed wherever they could cram it.).
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 I am not sure if you bothered to research any history at all...
Type 3 Chi-Nu would clearly be a fair match for Sherman, Type 4 Chi-To would smash the Sherman and
Type 5 Chi-Ri would turn the Sherman and even the damn Pershing into dust. Problem was the Japanese didn't have industry capacity to produce these tanks in fair numbers and not even making them face combat at the end of war but they would crush the Americans.
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@SMGJohn Also note the simple fact that the 76mm equipped M4A1s faced better than any other tank, and could easily slaughter the Tiger/Panthers well over 1,000 meters (And even beyond the highest hits, recorded 1,200-400 meters with HVAP!). M4A3E8s, by War's end, were the best of any tank in the world. PS: Japan failed in tank tech. 75mm build variants they built were puny, worthless, oversized, pigstys. :)!
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 I dunno if you realize this but no, the 76mm was underpowered and had serious problem against Tiger and Panther in the war. Only at the late of the war when the M26 Pershing came the Americans could finely have a fair match against the late Panther but even then the Panther II was in production. And no the best tank of the war was T-44 you imbecile however it saw little to non combat at the end of the war. The tank is seen as standard design of modern tank.
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@PhilosopherGaming Exactly! The Panther couldn't fire a high explosive for the life of it, had so many teething problems and was so bad yet had so much potential, it caused more problems for the Germans than it did good! The Sherman with a 76mm M1 easily knocked the damn thing out, provided it hit its muzzle at 1,200 meters. Some hit records show Panthers being knocked out at 1,400 meters. 51-68mms slopped protection was equal, and better than anything for a medium tank in 1942.
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 well I wouldnt say the panther was a bad tank at any stretch of the imagination or that upgraded shermans could EASILY knock one out since the panther was arguabley the best medium tank of the war (in terms of armour and firepower) but yeah I agree the upgunned shermans were capable of holding their own in terms of armament and the panthers complexity did cause the germans more harm than good in the long run
they might as well have continued with the panzer 4 line, much safer bet
PhilosopherGaming 3 months ago
@SMGJohn You stupid shit. You apparently have to knowledge do you? M4A1 w/76mm 1942 could slaughter the Tiger/Panthers well over 1,000 meters. Also note how the Sherman with a 75 actually got the better of the Panzer IV, and could actually duel with infantry as well! Panzer IV F2. was a failure in armor protection with only 45mms of unslopped armor (As bad as the T-34 pigsty in the East!) Even the Ausf.H was in danger at 800 meters with the 75. PS.75M3 had a penetration of about 60mms at 1,000m.
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 Sure the Panzer IV was outdated but later Pzkf IV models where better and had sloped armor and heavier gun. I wouldn't say the 76mm could take out a Tiger do you have any idea how much the Americans suffered in trying to take out one? Sure the Shermans 76mm gun was maybe able to take a Tiger out by shooting at certain weak points such as back and places on the sides. And no the T-34/76 is better then Sherman in many ways. And the T-34/85
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@SMGJohn From what i know, the only 2 versions of the Germans that stood any chance against the Germans tanks, were the Sherman Jumbo, and the Sherman Firefly, as obviously both were up gunned The 17-pounder fitted to the firefly was certainly capable of taking out a Tiger (in 1 famous case, a British Firefly took out 3 tigers in one battle). But the rest of the tank (especially the armour) was fairly terrible. The 17-pounder gun did far better in the Comet and the mark.VII Churchill.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 1 month ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx One T-34/85 once took out 3 King Tigers, One T-34/85 took out 5 Tigers and 10 Panzer IV alone. Yet the allies couldn't fucking produce a decent tanks. Even though the T-34 was in 1944 already 10 years old design
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn That's certainly very true, they also made 35,000 T34-85s, so they certainly had a lot of good tanks. From what i know, the T34 really did pioneer sloped armour.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 1 month ago
@SMGJohn That´s not entirely correct! The T-34, apart from its designation, was designed from 1937-1939! First production models were build in 1940 and from 1940 on to 1943 there were several different versions of the T-34/76 with different guns and turrets! The T-34/85 on the other hand was not designed/produced until 1943/44...so the age of the final design in 1944 was at most 4 years old!
c4blew 1 month ago
Cool tank Respect
Klaudiosable 4 months ago
lol its sounds like those civics with "muffler"
Lehmanbrother123456 4 months ago
love this tank. But i just dont know why.
Dannykle 4 months ago
The sound of thirty cylinders
iiocke 4 months ago
I'm just waiting for it to burst into flames.
x00001 4 months ago
This just makes me want to play World of tanks :/
peepeevagi 4 months ago
he's a great driver, snigger lol
cykadelik 4 months ago
hab ne zigarette hat jemand mal nen Feuerzeug ?^^
stierhufe 5 months ago
It is the lawnmoar.
MappyKeyes 5 months ago 14
@MappyKeyes As we say in us the right tnak for the wrong war we thought we would be comeing up against infantry and light and medium panzer 4,s and 3 tanks but when the tier and panther's where made we made pershing and a t29 and modified sherans into easy 8 tank t14's and jumbos but then the war ended only one of those tanks saw action in ww2 pershing vrs panther pershing won
Blueatchley12 1 month ago
@Blueatchley12 TIGER ,TANK*
Blueatchley12 1 month ago
hört sich an wie mein Rasenmäher :|
KlausBrot 5 months ago
Not not a M4, its either a M4A3E2, M4A3E8 or a M4A2E4 <-- I think thats its name?
HaiPeoplez 5 months ago
@HaiPeoplez Can't be the A3E8. It had a longer barrel and different suspension on the "Easy Eight". The M4A2E4 is possible since it was just an upgraded suspension version but was not put into production. An lastly that is certainly not the "Jumbo" Sherman M4A3E2
MrVolcanoes22 5 months ago
@HaiPeoplez
First one i believe the the "Jumbo" Sherman, so no to that one. the E8 had different boogies and a high velocity gun, so no. And no on the last, so, yeah isn't a M4A1 Sherman, but it isn't any of those either.
SpadXIIIFlyer 5 months ago
@SpadXIIIFlyer It's not a jumbo (much much larger) or an easy eight (It had vertical suspension bogies without the track blocks up top). It's just a regular ol non-special variant run of the mill M4 :D
peepeevagi 4 months ago
@peepeevagi
I said it wasn't, I was responding to someone who stated it might be a M4A3E2, which is the Jumbo, so it cant be. A
SpadXIIIFlyer 4 months ago
@SpadXIIIFlyer Well i was just saying :/
peepeevagi 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ThePlainzfyre burned near Kursk in Byelorussia and Poland.
greatchieftain 5 months ago
@ThePlainzfyre burned near Kursk in Byelorussia and Poland.
greatchieftain 5 months ago
no no no better said....the 88 shells target:D
dar260 5 months ago
dear santa,
ArmiGui1 5 months ago
Wow that looks and runs factory fresh! Congrats to whoever did the work on it!
heymisterderp 5 months ago
@heymisterderp they did a really good job , i do agree with u :o)
ex59neo53 5 months ago
mince lawnmower
tshiuetin 5 months ago
The tigers breakfast
Naxorex94 6 months ago 88
@Naxorex94 Yeah, but they couldn't hold their breakfast down long.
MrTahoe32 5 months ago
@Naxorex94 "The fiercest serpent may be overcome by a swarm of ants." Isoroku Yamamoto
Puzzoozoo 5 months ago
Comment removed
TheCrazyrogue666 5 months ago
@Naxorex94 Yeah thats a veerrry kind thing to say even though a lot of men fought and gave thier lives while fighting with that tank so we all can live in freedom. Yeah nice comment asshole!
gunboie5443 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Naxorex94 But he had more than he could eat.
YouGottaPurdyMouth 4 months ago
@Naxorex94 Its cousins the M18 hellcat and M10 Wolverine where its american nemisis :P
flightdeckreviews 4 months ago
@Naxorex94 Wow, you mean a Sherman's rape-toy? Sherman 76mm by 1942 could easily rape the Tiger well over a thousand meters. They didn't under perform against Panthers, either, and were the nightmares for the crews of Panzer IVs. Sad minded, horribly misinformed idiots who watch discovery, like you, obviously wouldn't understand facts. The Sherman matched all known Russian MBTs well into even the 70s (T-72A being the last to be destroyed by the 105s.) Sherman = A Legend.
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 LOL fail much!? Sherman was crushed by T-55 so shut up. Sherman against T-72? Gotta be one hell of a Sherman packed with 50 ton depleted uranium armor and a 500mm guided missile on top of it just to stand a fucking chance.
SMGJohn 3 months ago
@Naxorex94 Also note how fragile and how slow the pathetic Tiger was. Tigers had a horrible turret-traverse speed, could not turn suddenly to an enemy without risking the loss of a wheel, had relatively flawed armor in comparison to the excellent 51mms of slopping armor, took too much time, and were the mistake of Germany. Panzer IVs, the true tanks of Germany, unfortunately lacked the superiority they faced in the Sherman (Better speeds, equal handling, better armor until Ausf H., better gun.)
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Naxorex94 I don't think so dude.
This Tank is capable to destroy the Tiger with a single shot from the back.
It's fast and can easily get behind the Tiger in notime!
(Tiger armor is strong only in the front. in the rear is very weak and also the engine fuel is there)
gxz100 2 months ago
@gxz100 Die Tiger kamen in der Schlacht um Tunesien zum Einsatz, wo sie allen alliierten Panzern weit überlegen waren. Selbst aus geringster Entfernung konnte der M3-Panzer die Tiger-Panzerung nicht durchschlagen. Auch der immer häufiger auftretende M4 Sherman konnte die Panzerung des Tigers von allen Seiten unter normalen Umständen nicht durchschlagen, während die Tiger problemlos die alliierten Panzer auch auf größere Entfernung ausschalten konnten. Im to lazy to translate it do it for urself!
Naxorex94 2 months ago 5
Good in numbers, if you throw enough shit some will eventually stick!
TheCarlj100 6 months ago
crap
freddurobin 6 months ago
i hate how people act like the sherman was that bad i love it
jacobwolf124 6 months ago
What a peice of crap the Sherman tank was,lol. The nazis had the panzer and the tiger. Those were the two best tanks in the world at the time. The problem for the nazi's was that we could churn out like 100 shermans a day against their one or two panzer/tigers a day. It was the ford assembly lines that crushed the nazis. HOOAH!!
Nakor420ish 6 months ago
@Nakor420ish thats your opinion, for me the best tanks at the time were the churchill crocodile and the t-28 super heavy tank
TecZero1000 6 months ago
@TecZero1000 Not MY opinion. Every expert on all sides at the time agreed that the germans had the most advanced tanks. It's not an opinion, it's fact.
Nakor420ish 6 months ago
@Nakor420ish ... not really, the t-28 had the the heaviest armor and the crocodile had steel melting flamethrower that stuck to everything, and the shermans had enough turrets and hulls built to make a berlin wall of tanks, while the germans built 1 a day the americans built 100 a day
TecZero1000 6 months ago
@TecZero1000 The only thing that's true here is the allied mass production compared to the German war industry. You can't compare the t-28 with German tanks because it was never used in world war 2. Steel melting flamethrower is just bullshit, this can only disable the tank not melt it. Churchill was more infantry support, it could not deal with German armor. The 2 tanks that you just mentioned are both slow as hell, what makes them useless compared to German steel.
Zfk41 6 months ago
@Zfk41 actually the melting point of steel or armor is about 2500 degrees F, so i can be possible, but yes the t-28 super heavy was post warfare, according to the testing, it can stand up to the big tanks
TecZero1000 6 months ago
@TecZero1000 Scrathing paint on 100MM armor is something else then melting a tank, this is something that couldn't happen for real. And you said 'according to the testing', wich was propably done by the US, wich means that there is a big chance that the test results are full of lies and propaganda, just like most history books/sites nowadays. Also, tests are based on reality, but they can not guarantee all the results+by the time the t28 was ready, the Germans would have something more superior.
Zfk41 6 months ago
@Zfk41 i will give you the first one. but the more superior german tank will only be a dream, they wanted a tank the size of the D.O.R.A. Railway gun but it needs metal, fuel, ammo and supplies. all things they were lacking, its just like the american war in the middle east right now. fighting for oil, its a need we can't live without
TecZero1000 6 months ago
@Zfk41 We didn't need something "superior." Sherman Jumbo, E8 and the A1 with a 76 would cook the panther at about 1,600 meters. It was also the tiger killer/panzer IV's worst nightmare. To think of needing another tank is quite bullshit. Also, American testing full of lies? Really? How about Russian? Last time I checked, the T-34-85's gun was actually shittier than the Sherman's 76mm. 76 was comparable to most guns of Germany, including then Panther's. ;)
Tyco200 6 months ago
@Tyco200Ofcourse the US didn't need 'superior' tanks because they were able to mass produce and replace/repair destroyed vehicles quickly. And i don't think that 'Tigers worst nightmare' is a good description, ofcourse it's possible that it was a tough verhicle to encounter compared to other US vehicles, but i still think their crew would rather be in a Tiger I. And i said that the testing was full of lies because, as you probably know; History is written by the victors and is mostly exaggerated
Zfk41 6 months ago
@Zfk41 Not to mention the fact that a Sherman with the 76mm or a Sherman with the firefly (2,000 built versus 1,200 tigers) were superior to anything of their type, or at least able to deal with those kinds of tanks... Either way, Churchill was a disaster. Infantry support tank with literally useless flat plates of armor unable to stop even the slow Tiger... Disaster...
Tyco200 6 months ago
@Tyco200 The Sherman with the 76MM gun still had to come very close to weak spots to had a chance of penetration. The Firefly was able to penetrate Tiger I's armor from longer distances, but the only thing they were superior compared to the Tiger was mass production (and maybe mobility, because it was a med), Tiger I had a better gun, thicker armor, better crew (mostly) and were able to target and engage an enemy quicker because of better RF, Periscope and radio equipment
Zfk41 6 months ago
@Nakor420ish and i bet you never even seen a t-28
TecZero1000 6 months ago
@Nakor420ish the german king tiger was said it couldn't penetrate it
TecZero1000 6 months ago
@Nakor420ish The sherman is in fact the best meduim tank of world war 2. Now look at that sentence closley. It was the best meduim tank keyword meduim. Of course the sherman would get destroyed by a fucking heavy tank because it a fucking heavy tank, and i get so pissed at the government back then for making our soldiers fight heavy tanks with meduim ones. We could have wiated 6 months to make a lot of pershing heavy tanks. see that the pershing was americas heavy tank.
blazingkhalif2 5 months ago
@blazingkhalif2 The Pershing was classified as a Heavy before the End of WWII, but afterwards it was 'demoted' to a Medium Tank (a quite good one btw)
CJsHomie 5 months ago
nice tin can
Panzersoldat073 6 months ago
my grandfather would shed a tear seeing this. He was a army ranger out of Texas
in Normandy and Poland.
westernpack99 6 months ago
lol Sounds like a lawn mower engine.
movietow 6 months ago
While everyone talks about the T34, the T34 this, T34 that, the M4 was on par, if not better in some ways. The M4 had far better reliability, better tracks, a more reliable engine, more slope on the rear armor, and slightly heavier frontal armor. It also had much better gunsights. T34 had sloped side armor, was a lower target, and didn't burn as much.
We pumped out 50,000 of these M4s in maybe 2 or 3 years, with half of our steel going to warships at the same time! Pretty damn good tank.
redreaper2020 6 months ago
The winning side in WW2 used the Sherman. Any disagreements?
yamahabobwv 6 months ago
@yamahabobwv Yeah at the cost of thousands of Shermans being blown to bits along with their crews, thanks to the German Panthers and Tigers and 88mm flak artillery, thats why it had the nickname TOMMY COOKER and RONSON LIGHTER, because it allways lit up and blew up with one shot from the enemy, too thin of armour, and too high a profile=easy target.
haiherosner 6 months ago
@yamahabobwv The winning side used them yes, that doesnt make them any good ;)
I would basically take it as a death sentence to be ordered to drive one of those.
DaReaperZ 6 months ago
This unit must have a modern engine in it. The original ones had a radial aircraft engine.
jrkepler 6 months ago
I would love to drive one of those.
KnightOwl2006 6 months ago
THESE ARE LUCKY MEN ,.... I got a job for you in my yard cause pest plant is taking over... lol - No, nice to see them old dogs still running like that COOL !
J4NN3K 6 months ago
I have always adored the sherman tank after I saw the movie "TANK" (1984) I only recently found out that the sherman was no match for a tiger:(
rle1111 6 months ago
@rle1111: Oh that's that movie with that rockford guy, no? James Garner?.... saw it on cable over here in germany once,...
J4NN3K 6 months ago
actually sherman is not made for head on fighting against any nazi tank it was only used for supporting an infamtry
pouj4000 6 months ago
@pouj4000 That might be true actually! It's not a tank hunter.
DaReaperZ 6 months ago
Its a bleeking "Tommie Cooker" is what it is mate.
blastforyou 6 months ago
What a load of shit
darcymusic 6 months ago
sherman a fine tank, but no match for the tiger or the phanter
thebiest100 6 months ago
that is cool, may be the only actual Sherman I have ever seen running, other than in a movie.... thanks
subron6er 6 months ago
Great footage railnwings. Thanks for posting. I've just uploaded footage of a couple of Shermans at the Military and Flying Machines show at Upminister last week.
aviationdocs 6 months ago
This is an M4A3 tank -- so the engine is a FORD GAA 8-cylinder gas engine.
Same motor used in the M-26 and many other tanks. The ARMY loved the GAA and so did tankers!
PaulFarace 7 months ago
Woof woof, thats my dog impretion LOL
Giselle76502 7 months ago
If you listen closely you can hear environmentalists killing themselves in despair :D
Godv2 7 months ago
Its not a tin can, only to a few of the heavier german tanks/tank destroyers with 75mm guns or larger. Shermans equipped with the longer 76mm cannon were often comparable to the germans most produced tank of the war, the panzer IV. The Sherman does not suck compared to other "medium" tanks. If anything its the best mediun tank of the war aside from the T-34. If you want to compare the "heavy" tiger to something then compare it to the M29 Pershing.
Mattmaster56 7 months ago
Sherman Tank=Tommy Cooker or Ronson lighter, one shot and it's guaranteed to light up(explode).
haiherosner 7 months ago
Sherman tank= Tin cans.
UStheFA 7 months ago
@ajrhotrodz Wrong. It' a Ford V8.
railnwings 7 months ago
R-975 Whirlwind cos it has a air plane like sound
ajrhotrodz 7 months ago
Comment removed
Americanrebel13 7 months ago
Respond to this video... I dont know if this sherman was repowered with a Ford V8 but if it has the original motor its either a radial 8 or 9 I dont remember wich
Americanrebel13 7 months ago
@railnwings I heard it was only motor actually maded for that tank, the rest of type´s used in Sherman were modified plane/other type motors
OspreyCZ 7 months ago
@railnwings Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves, and think of something positive for a change?
lefdepord 7 months ago
@railnwings your both right and wrong. the first production of sherman was a ford v8 then later was a ford whirlwind.
BADprid3 6 months ago
@railnwings You're both wrong it has a Flux capacitor!
Gavin66627 6 months ago
The M4 Sherman was actually a VERY good medium tank, and unlike what most people say it actually was quite powerful in terms of amour and armament.
JGMRACING89 7 months ago
Everything the Tigers and Panthers were the Sherman wasn't. They were big, Heavy and not very maneuverable and unreliable. The Sherman was a small quick tank that can out flank a Tiger or Panther and (when not getting blown up) very reliable. See exact opposites
BRIANROX1 7 months ago
Americans should realize their tanks were worse than any german or russian tanks. In my opinion the sherman is a driving piece of shit.
lfcdave8 8 months ago
@lfcdave8 even though the sherman sucked in world war 2 compared to german tanks it still didn't matter since we outnumbered the germans
bearsfan97 8 months ago
@bearsfan97 congratulations that russia (hardest enemy), Great Britain, Canada, USA, later France outnumbered us!
lfcdave8 8 months ago
@lfcdave8 actually the shermans were destroying german tanks in africa. The only reason the started to suffer in europe is because they only fought heavy tanks. So of course the sherman gets destroyed, it's only a medium tank.
blazingkhalif2 5 months ago
@blazingkhalif2 When fighting in Battle nobody cares about shooting at mediums or heavys. This ain't WoT were Shermans don't get matched with Tigers.
CJsHomie 5 months ago
The Sherman was a great tank...after she was upgraded...the M4A3 had much thicker armour and a more powerful 76mm cannon, the M36 had a 90mm M3 cannon, the British Firefly and the Israli Isherman were also some good tanks
chris3035 8 months ago
sounds a little rough
cementhauler99 8 months ago
Great little tank. one of my fav....
beinebeine01 8 months ago
I still wouldn't want to get hit by it
bobbyraejohnson 9 months ago
Fire the crappy 75 MILIMETER ALL READY!!
ben191209 9 months ago
@ben191209 Poor Range, Poor Armor, Poor Fire Power...Amazing Speed for its time and you can't hit what you can't catch so you either catch it by surprise or lure it into a trap how ever as long as its crew is stilled neither will be a easy task. Simple terms the Tiger had the power to destroy it but not the speed and the Sherman had the speed to catch a Tiger but not the fire power destroy it.
lucasMhewitt 8 months ago
if i ever get the chance to ride one, then my life will have been lived, this is my favorite tank of all time, it looks just like the model one i got
arragon5481 9 months ago
It sounds like a radial engine.
PaleRlder 9 months ago
It must be fun driving that. Thumbs up!
creamofcardstv 9 months ago
What type of engine is that? It doesn't sound like any M4 i've heard. o_O
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@XxxSakura101 It is a Ford V8.
railnwings 9 months ago 8
@railnwings No wonder Shermans had engine problems xD
peepeevagi 4 months ago
@XxxSakura101 must of heard a m4 with a modern engine
123mrresidentevil 9 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Ya, it does sound kinda different. But it should be the original Ford GAA V8 engine...
JGMRACING89 7 months ago
@XxxSakura101 There were three different one's, they use a radial air cooled aircraft engine, an all aluminum V8, and a five bank of six cylinder Chrysler engines. Ford may have built the V8, but I don't know. My second cousin commanded a Sherman in The Bulge, and I worked with a ww2 Army mechanic in the seventies.
Auggie56 6 months ago
@XxxSakura101 Shermans came with two different kinds of engines,I'm pretty sure this one had a air cooled radial engine.
Hardcorediver44 6 months ago
@XxxSakura101 It sounds like a golf cart
L16C11P90M 6 months ago
@XxxSakura101 It is M4A4, and engine Chrysler A57 Multibank
nipuch 5 months ago
Hunnicutt's very well researched "Pershing"--the standard reference book on this tank--states that no encounter between the Super-Pershing and a King Tiger occurred. Hunnicutt's book was written in 1971, but it is quite explicit in documenting Pershing kills (including pictures that exist) as well as battle damage suffered by Pershings and contains a complete listing of the units employing the tank and acccounts including its Pacific service.
akulaknight 9 months ago
Comment removed
Treetop64 9 months ago
i have read from many sources that the pershing suffered from being underpowered and prone to transmission failures until after the war. i could be wrong, but its just what i remember. the sherman was an ok tank, but by wars end was clearly out dated and needed an armor and gun upgrade. it didnt do well against the panther unless it flanked the tank. even the MK IV asf G model could tear a sherman apart. the problem was the U.S. refused to accept the fact it needed a re-design.
akulaknight 9 months ago
That doesn't mean the Sherman, or any other tank that faced Tigers and Panthers for that matter, where "shitty", as you so eloquently put it... That is a shortsighted, uninformed, woefully ignorant assumption to make.
Treetop64 9 months ago
issue 3 i have is that no tiger II would move closer at point blank range and expose its underbelly by climbing over a pile of rubble. clearly the rubble was cover, why move? tigers were only given to the best tank crews, not newbs. there are no photos of this "kill". how could propaganda miss out here? but yet, no photos exist. thats just my point of view. they probably engaged a panther and mistook it for a tiger II.
akulaknight 9 months ago
Zippo tank!
YUCplNT 9 months ago
i too would like to do donuts in a sherman like what the driver did. :D
does anyone know the exact model of this sherman?
genola 9 months ago
@genola
It could be either an M4 (air cooled radial engine), M4A2 (twin GM diesel engines), or M4A3 (Ford GAA petrol engine). All three are almost visually identical and are difficult to tell apart. The M4A1 can be ruled out since it had the single piece cast hull of a more rounded appearance.
Treetop64 9 months ago
P.1000 Rat. Aptly named. Albert Speer wisely cancelled this monstrosity in 1943 so that multitude of far more practical items could be built.
Treetop64 9 months ago
HO-2 - One half complete airframe built. None flown...
Me-262 - Good jet, yes. The Brits and Americans had jets in Europe before the end of the war, too, though none saw combat.
FW-190 - Best in the world when it came out. Obsolescent by the end of the war (except the Dora and Ta-152).
Mause - One half-built prototype. A misguided, wasteful, deluded fantasy.
Nearly every U-boat built was sunk.
Panther was built as a direct result of the Germans surprise run-in with the T-34.
Treetop64 9 months ago
In my opinion, the Americans and Russians were best at making tanks because they made cheap, efficient tanks which won the war unlike the glorified junks of Germany which were intimidation but ultimately lost the war.
And lets not get started on how both Americans and Russians started to produce tanks which dwarfed the Tiger and Tiger-2 in every way before the end of the war. (ex. Pershings and IS-3s)
dlxowns322 9 months ago
@dlxowns322 russian armor was brittle and prone to spalling. so the round doesnt pierce, it still kills the crew. if the german tanks were junk like you clearly believe, than tell me why our tanks dont use bulldozer contolls anymore? or why do MBT's use torsion bar suspensions? the tiger I was very reliable by wars end, and so was panther. tiger II, not so much, but thats due to her weight. research man, dont go off hearsay. the pershing you mention was crap, and wasnt a match for the tiger II.
akulaknight 9 months ago