@MrFluoxetinePatch Yes specially when it was a design from 1930s Even in the 30s the American 'medium' tank had thinner armor then this tanks. American tank designs where the worst in the whole world
@SMGJohn I stated that very fact to some kid the other day. He took mistook my statement for hatred of America. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Sherman did win the war but only because of shear numbers and the fact that we ruled the air. By win the war I mean on the Western front, not taking anything away from the Russians did.
Cant agree. T 34 was far more advanced conceptually. Broad tracks, sloped armour, easy to build. Everything the Tiger wasnt. one on one, it had no chance due to the Tigers 88 but design wise, T 34 was miles ahead.
The best tanks of those days had germans. they had the tigers, panthers and other types. only problems were engine faults which were caused by overloading.
@warmoviesboy IS-2 was a snack to tiger II and the ISU-152 was so clumsy that destroying that was a pease of cake to infantry. and ISU was used more as an artillery that tank destroyer. russians beated germans by their number. if it was 1VS1 the german would win. and germans had the mighty jadgtiger and tiger II.
@9antsa6 Nope your wrong the King Tiger had a hard time penetrating an IS front armor even from 600m. Plus less than 500 were made and almost half didn't even do anything but cost the Germans resources. It needed 1 gallon of gas to travel 2 miles...lol. It was too late Soviets had air power and could bomb anywhere they wanted too. Tell the ISU 152 was crap to the tiger crews that had their turrets blown off.
Yeah but the tiger II weighed 69 tons while the IS2 was 46 tons and the tiger had 180mm armor while the IS had 160mm. Either way both where good tanks but the Tiger II was much harder to produce.
@warmoviesboy yeha the produce part kinda sucked, but it was the best tank in ww2. and the german tank grews were better trained :DDD both great tanks
@shaider1982 it served as both, but it was mostly seen as artillery and it was effective tank killer, but when it faced infantry it was quite hopeless situation for ISU152.
@9antsa6 Germans had the best tanks of the war in terms of firepower and armor. However, by no means were their production efficient and therefore their numbers were overwhelmingly inferior (barely 1,300 tiger tanks against well over 50,000 T-34s for example). Also, their mobility was crap compared to the allies. Tigers and all their heavy armor bogged down frequently, ran out of fuel too fast, and suffered a lot of mechanical problems. They had amazing tanks, but just not enough of them.
@marine9588 yea... but probably the best german tank was the panther, which had 75mm cannon and almost 100mm armor and it was builded about 6000 pieces. and after putting speed limiter to their engines, the engine broblems ran out.
@9antsa6 Yeah I agree. The panther is considered by most historians as the best tank in all of WWII for its great balance in the three key factors of tanks: firepower, armor, and mobility. The panther's tank destroyer varient, the jagdpanther was the best tank destroyer of the war in my opinion. The Tiger II and Jagdtiger are awesome too but they were pushed wayy over their limits.
@marine9588 well. they couldnt enymore develope panther because of the new IS-series which overwhelmed panther in ewery factors... so they made tiger 2 and jadgtiger. :)
@Siddich well they had the T-34 which defeated ewery german tank until 1942 when tigers and panther came to frontlines. anfter that came the T-34-85, IS-2 and ISU-152 and many others...
@9antsa6 Actually the Panzer 4 was generally accepted to be a match for the T-34, but not the KV-1. And panthers were first used at the battle of Kursk in 1943. You are however correct about the Tiger. The IS-2 however was sadly a poor tank, due to the fact that its 122 mm gun was not as penetrative as it should have been, and the lack of space for much ammunition. It should also be noted that the Germans generally had superior gun sights. No offence meant, I am a fanatic of ww2 stuff :)
@Tinchle21 i think that the pz4's early versions wery easily defietable by the original T-34. soon after realizing that they added more powerful cannon and sideplates to pz4. But if you comepare the production rate between tiger II and IS-2... the IS would win for shore, but still i like german tanks more.. :DD
@talkingmonkey1000 whit their great numbers not in their quality... and when they made those russian tanks at the factories they didnt put to their armor the most critical element... nickle which made the armor thougher. but still Tiger II is the best tank of WW2
@9antsa6 You mean the tank that Joahim Piper called in Ardenes "immovable crap"? Koenigstiger was too large, too heavy and too expensive to produce. Decision of making tank like this greatly reduced the possible potential of Panzerwaffe. It was much better to produce more PzKpfw V, that were much more effective, more reliable (G version), and needed less fuel. The only advantage of this tank is 88-mm cannon. But Panther's 7,5 cm KwK 42 L/70, was sufficient to fight any allied tank.
@Florek112 king tiger did not fitt to ardens but it did do the best results at eastern front where several kilometres lenght of plains ruled the landskape... ower there king tiger was its best when the range of russian wasnt enough. and the reason why they made it so heavy was because it needed more armor to stand IS-2 122mm ammo. and yes, i would prefer panther more in other specs but tiger 2 was also a moral weapon which caused fear in allies and respect in axis...
@9antsa6 But it brought Third Reich closer to the end of war. Lost war. When Koenigstiger came into service, Germans were pushed away from "russian flat landscape". Range didn't even matter so much, because of accuracy. You had pretty average chance of hitting the target, on a range, where Panther's cannon were sufficient. But, even than, what gives You the best cannon, when there is high possibility, that tank will break? And You don't have enough fuel?
@9antsa6 BTW: "Fear of Tigers" among allied soldiers is a myth. There are no relations, where allied soldiers withdrawn, because Tigers came to the battlefield. They were rather used to situation, that when they met German tanks, they were calling air support. And it was normal. No matter it was Tiger or something else. There are no evidence, that allies were fearing Tiger, or Koenigstiger more than other German weapon. It's a legend.
@Florek112 Its not a legend. in normandy several soldiers reported thousands of tigers to their officers and in that sector there was only a few tiger. and it tigers truely inspirated the ordinary german infantry. and according true facts a german tiger destroyed 24 shermans in normandy in just few hours. and by the way do you know any panther ace who served in ww2, because i know several german tiger aces (michale Wittman, kurt knispel (jadgtiger) and otto carius) but no panther aces.tigerrule
@9antsa6 Ernst Barkmann, Franz Bake for example. There were many aces on Panther's, StuG's even Pz IV's. Wittmann achieved many of his kills on Sturmgeschutz, and Tiger I. The action You're talking about is Villers-Bocage, and was made by Wittmann. He destroyed even more tanks, not only Shermans. But it was also made on Tiger I, not II. Help of any armored vehicle was inspiring to soldiers. And give me ONE accident, of allied soldiers retreating because Tigers appeared. One.
@9antsa6 You told (quote:) "several tiger aces [...] but no panther aces". Yes, many, (not most) of tank aces were made with Tiger. But Tiger I, not II! Two completely different tanks. And You were talking about Koenigstiger as "the best tank of WW2". Which I can't agree, and I gave arguments why. Of course You can have Your own opinion. And You still didn't prove me, or gave any example, that allied soldier feared Tigers more than Panthers or other armor. Thanks for discussion BTW
@Florek112 please sir... dont get all sveatty. its a matter of opinion that which tank you would prefer, but tiger 2 was quit undefeatable in face to face combat, but hard to manourfacture and expensive. and why tiger is so fearsome among allies: tiger's 88 grow fear in allied tankers when they knew that tehir cannon couldnt penetrate it. and from tiger were spread loads of propaganda in america and you cant deny that tiger is the most known tank in ww2 with sherman and t34.
@9antsa6 Don't call me sir, please, I don't feel so old yet ;). Tiger II was almost undefeatable (in one on one fight) for majority of allied tanks in equal conditions. If it had fuel and wasn't broken, and wasn't shot from side or back. But the same You can talk about Tiger I, and Panther. BTW: Panther's 7,5 cm KwK 42, compared to Tiger's 8,8 cm KwK 36, had better (a little) penetration, and a bit worse than KwK 43 from Tiger II. Smaller caliber, was leveled by higher muzzle velocity.
@9antsa6 To end: Yes, Tiger is a legend. Allied soldiers were sometimes calling Tigers entirety of German panzerwaffe. That's why so many reports of Tigers in Normandy, what You noticed. It's understandable for me that it can make impression, because it was heaviest, biggest, and very powerful tank that created respect. But I'm a historian by profession, I base on pure facts, and it had disadvantages I mentioned that in my opinion disqualify it as a "best" tank. Greetings for You. ;)
@9antsa6 You are completely wrong, it is a common misconception that German tanks were the best. They were not. The panther was outdated by WWII standards, and the Tiger was plagued with problems. People think they were the best due to Germany's initial success with blitzkrieg. France in fact has superior tanks but used them terribly. The soviet t-34 was superior. Remember that Germany had virtually nothing 8 years before the war. They were very behind in tank technology.
@njdevil281 He's maybe a little bit wrong, but You're wrong also. Panther outdated? Tiger outdated? So which allied tanks were not outdated, if these German tanks were? In late 43' for example, when these tanks were in common service (Tiger from 42')? And the only tank, that could stand firefight with them was IS-2 at that time (and we have to remember that it wan't common until 44')?
@njdevil281 and if german tanks were outdated, what were the allied tanks... and the end of blitzkrieg peroid was caused because hitlers mistakes when he didnt fully invade england. hitler was obsedded to concuer russia and he almost forget ewerything else...
@njdevil281 Didn't I just reply to you on another video? In any case, the Panther didn't even exist at the start of the war. The biggest weakness of German tanks was their lack of ability to produce them in quantity. The reason Germany failed to defeat Russia was Hitler's idiotic ideal to aid Italy. If the German Army had have 4 more weeks of good weather things may have been totally different. The German Army on the Eastern front were not geared for a defensive winter battle.
@9antsa6 The Tiger and Tiger II are engineering nightmares, the transmission and the egine are way to weak fo rtanks of their size. Another Problem are the otto-motors that they use instead of diesel-egines.The Panther and the Panzer IV are the best of the bunch. The Stugs are awesome and the Jagdpanther. The Maus is simple Lunacy. We got some good tanks and some that were just nightmares, and i'm german.
@LupusAries Ok... well maus was a bit too much. And pz4 and panther were awesome, but When T-34 came to the battlefield the pz4 was quit useless (in most of cases). Tiger's were a "fast" answer to the soviet T-34 and later by the IS. and most of WW2 tanks had several engine faults at their first days, but later they were fixed.
@LupusAries Ewen your "best of the bunch" panther sufered several engine faults at its first battle at kursk, most of the panther at kursk didnt ewen make it to the battle because their engines were broken..
@9antsa6 That happens if you don't finish trials before doing the first combat operation. Well it still had some problems later, sometimes, though much less frequently than the Tiger. Actually the upgunned PzIV- the F2 and later versions could handle the T-34, as well as the Stug III, which was in the winter of 1941 the only german AFV able to deal with the KV-1 and the T-34. True the Tiger was pressed into service ASAP, otherwise there would've been a redesign.
@LupusAries yes i totally agree, but still the T-34 was a bad opponent to upped pz4 and the germans new that and started develop other tanks such ass the tiger and panther
@9antsa6 True, very true. I think they would've needed a full redesign of the PanzerIV chassis giving it sloped armor as well. Somewhat like the Pz III/IV design. And the thing is, the Panther was a well rounded tank but on the Panther II they were again trying to make it heavier. After all the problems they had with the Tiger and they tried to do the same with the panther, talk about not learning lessons. luckily though, for all of us, the nazis lost.
@andersdesertfoxV The mortar was not shooting to kill a tank, it is used to strip the infantry support from the tank. A tank is more easily killed by infantry if there is no infantry supporting the tank. The Japanese realized this to and went to great efforts to strip American infantry from a tank so suicide mine attacks could be used to kill an American tank.
Success experience in this war seems to have made Americans believe in war. Do you think gun-fighting clears every problem among people and nations without any grudge?
@1bearcatf8f Indeed, Japanese armor in WWII was atrocious. One had to respect their infantry, but their armor capability was a joke. American AT weaponry at the time could easily obliterate them, and that should tell alot about their quality.
@Warmaker01 There infantry was brutal but worked using WW1 style charging tactic's,they infact had some Medium tanks but they came out to late to ever be widely used.
@1bearcatf8f They had poduced a few tanks neer the end of the war that could destroy a sherman like the Type 4 Chi To ad Type 4 Chi Ha which both had 75mm gun and up to 75mm armor. They were never used in combat though because only a few were produced and were planned to be used in the defence of Japan.
@1bearcatf8f Yeah, allot greater numbers of shermans were produced because of America's capability to produce large numbers of them, only over 2,000 Type 95 ha-go tanks were produced because the Japanese didn't have as great the capability to produce them but they were easy to produce.
@1bearcatf8f Japanese tanks were easier to produce than American tanks but shermans and M3s were still easy to pruduce but the Japanese tank used less materials and pruduced them in masses at he start of the war altough the Japanese were runnin lower and lower on materials as the war went on.
@1bearcatf8f Japanese tanks were poor in quality as Japan didn't have any need for effective tanks prior, say, 1943. Americans had very few tanks and those sucked big time before Sherman entered service, and China had pretty much zero tanks, just infantry. And, in the end, Japan didn't even need tanks. Shermans were better but not decisive - only a few battlefields in Pacific War was suitable for tanks, and a few tanks can only do so much. Speaking as a former tank operator here.
@Kuhlfurst The M3 wasnt a bad tank.that was a light tank though.The Sherman's were produced in larger number's with an obviously bigger gun.In the pacific japanese light tanks worked better because there small and can get into tight space's.But say on battle's such as Iwo Jima would have been for tank's up to a certain part.
@1bearcatf8f M3 was a lousy tank as it had an incredibly high profice, limited drive space for its main gun and it was far below its German counterparts in general effectiveness. As a former tank operator I can say that M3, while not inherently shitty, was of really bad design. Even the Sherman had fundamental design flaws, such as its proneness to catching fire when taking hits to the engine (lead to losing a lot of crews that survived the actual impact)
@Kuhlfurst It wasnt that bad of a tank.It was still better than the Type 95 and most japanese tank's.But the Sherman was mass produced while german,and japanese tank's were not.Beside's with the arrival of the M26 Pershing we could tackle any tank we faced
@Kuhlfurst But firepower,protection the m3 sucked.Speed wasnt bad for it.It was a light tank and used for infantry support also serving as a recon tank because of its speed
@Kuhlfurst It is not the engine you knuckle head. M4, and any other tanks, catch fire because a penetrating shell would detonate the ammo inside the tank. The Allies learn to wet their ammo which reduce the chance of their shells to blow up. If you care to look at any Soviet-German tank battles, you will see plenty of T-34s on fire. It rare for the Panther and Tiger I to catch on fire because they are mostly penetrate from the sides. Lesser chance of hitting the ammo.
@Kuhlfurst M3 is a scout tank. The high profile allow it to spot enemy over hills and other obstacles. It actually better than or equal to its German counterparts. Such as the Panzer I/II, both design as infantry support/scout armor. Panzer III was built to fight tanks and the Panzer IV, earlier model, was built solely for infantry support. It was not fast enough to be a scout.
@shaider1982 The Tanks sucked,the Rifle's didnt suck,they were accurate and deadly.The Type-99 LMG was deadly to.The Type 100 smg sucked.the Japanese had to copy the M1 Garand by the end of the war wich didnt see action
@1bearcatf8f Hmm, so almost everything sucked for the Japanese Imperial Army. I've even read about the Luger copy that was liable to misfire while in the holster. Not sure of the name. Man, I wonder why they were give such inferior (for the most part) equipment.
hmmm easiest way to kill jap infantry is just trying to shoot at a japanese tank... seems japanese training is to clump up behind a tank in the midst of a mortar bombardment......
@Jakethesnake1281 its a typical WWII move where alway die the nazis and japanese soldiers and the americans never die. thats why the tank dont hit them.
@Eorthil Just becuase one scene dosn't show the mortar team getting killed dosn't mean its made to where no Americans die. Its based on what really happened, based off someones account. I know of movies that are biased and show only the enemy dying but this show isn't biased its based on what happened to those individuals.
Shut Up I've watched every single episode at least 5 times and I've read With the Old Breed. I didn't say a juxtaposition between reality and the miniseries I said between reality and hollywood.
This is from the miniseries "The Pacific" which has at least ten 1-hour episodes. If you watch the miniseries you will see many American and Japanese soldiers getting killed and maimed...It is really bloody and horrible to watch at times.
You cannot judge the miniseries by just watching 2 minutes of just one episode.
The miniseries is based on the two memoirs of U.S. Marines Eugene Sledge and Robert Leckie.
This is from the miniseries "The Pacific" and yes you will see many soldiers getting killed and maimed
You can watch this YouTube video of The Pacific - Part 8 - Iwo Jima Beach Landing to see that this is true w w w . youtube . com/watch?v=98IXQRkVYf0&feature=related
The Japanese weren't bad soldiers, this is largely a myth. What hampered the Japanese was often flawed tactical and strategic thinking and they were led by officers who were driven more by honour than by professionalism. Sure, their equipment was largely sh** but with that sh** they were on the brink of conquering most of Asia. Also, never forget the contribution of the American army who fought alongside the marines and often in larger numbers.
@commisarmike Well yeah I know it's a medium but compared to the armor and firepower of most of the tanks it was fighting in Europe like the Panther and Tiger, it might as well have been a light tank. Yet it's armor and weapon are superior to most if not all of the Imperial Japanese tanks it fought in the Pacific . But you can't the Japanese for that. They were never intended to be very heavy. The weight would be a lability in the damp tropical inviroments that they were intended to fight in.
@yuzotasaki Not to be a jerk or anything but that's because those were the ones that were predominately used in combat by the Japanese WWII. Their heaviest medium tank to ever reach mass production was the Type 3 Chi-Nu. And the war ended before the 166 made could even see combat. There was the Type 97 Chi-Ha and the Type 89 Chi-Ro but those were only 14 and 12 tons. The Type 5 Chi-Ri and Type 95 Heavy Tank never really got beyond the prototype stage...
@yuzotasaki I hope you realize Type 95 Ha-go was inferior even to M2
M2 had a better gun, better mobility and were reliable.
Type 95, however, had numeral mechanical flaws and although its gun was at same calibur, it had inferior armor penetration compared to that of M2 which was worsened by it using inferior ammunition.
And if you start comparing it to R-35, its isn't even fair due to R-35 having a much better armor while having about the same gun.
I've saw several Japanese tanks at a California Army National Guard post.
To call them "tanks" is to abuse the term. The gun was laughable, the armor was non-existant, and with my butt in the tank commander's seat my feat were in the driver's seat.
I think calling the Armed Recon Vehicles might be more accurate...
All this talk about tigers. If the Japanese were building Tiger tanks, it would have been like... "Hey Sarge, during low tide we saw this weird looking turret sticking out of the sand"
Both sides are joke , if there is one Tiger tank they would run like crazy without air support because they will need couple of tanks like this craps to beat just one single Tiger
These tanks were designed to fight on the Chinese mainland against poorly equipped Chinese forces. They did well in that instance. But, after the Japanese expanded their empire into the Pacific, very little time or energy was spent on tank R&D, because who would expect tank battles on little Pacific islands? That's why when the Japanese met the American forces, they were caught with their pants down. They did attempt producing heavier tanks, but they never made much of a showing.
@ThePerfectRed well, seeing as though the japs lost over 2million soldiers fighting JUST the americans and the US lost 416000 fighting in europe AND the pacific the fact that the japs were slaughtered in this vid is actually very accurately depicted XD
Leave it out armchair warriors. Just accept it for what it is - a dramatic piece of entertainment :p
DirtySaltyBug 1 day ago
German fanboys, piss off with your overrated overcomplicated prone to malfunction german tanks. They had good firepower and armor, But it ends there
F4Wildcat 1 week ago
lol american propaganda
719n30track 2 weeks ago
1:56 punch strike trough they armour !!!!
norasethyb 2 weeks ago
what is this from?
Rawtoastify 2 weeks ago
score one for the SHERMAN!!!
RammsteinXgta 2 weeks ago
The Japs should have built some effective self propelled tank hunters like the Hetzer or Jagdpanzer IV.
dynaflow74 2 weeks ago
I hate this movie.
OneofPatriotofJAPAN 2 weeks ago
FORD vs Toyota
llatimer2 3 weeks ago
OH YOU BEAUTIFUL BABIES!
ManTheHarpoons9 1 month ago
what movie is this from?
Nexuz2595 1 month ago
@Nexuz2595
The Pacific miniseries
djbanizza 3 weeks ago
大日本帝国バンザイ！！
くたばれ鬼畜米英。
newhampshireexpress 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
thumbs up if you came here looking for MW3 gun...
cruton88 1 month ago
Well......at least Imperial Japan had a good navy..
TalonMercenary 2 months ago
you mean the type 99 you dumbass.
weaponbros 2 months ago
I can see why it was nicknamed the Paper Tank.
MrFluoxetinePatch 2 months ago
@MrFluoxetinePatch Yes specially when it was a design from 1930s Even in the 30s the American 'medium' tank had thinner armor then this tanks. American tank designs where the worst in the whole world
SMGJohn 1 month ago
@SMGJohn I stated that very fact to some kid the other day. He took mistook my statement for hatred of America. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Sherman did win the war but only because of shear numbers and the fact that we ruled the air. By win the war I mean on the Western front, not taking anything away from the Russians did.
BayouCityHtown 5 days ago
Piece of shit tanks. Piece of shit planes. Piece of shit ships.
DragonOfQin 2 months ago
Cant agree. T 34 was far more advanced conceptually. Broad tracks, sloped armour, easy to build. Everything the Tiger wasnt. one on one, it had no chance due to the Tigers 88 but design wise, T 34 was miles ahead.
stubbostubbs 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In the Euro Front Shermans were coffins on treads....on the Pacific Front. they were the OMFG CANS OF WHOOPASS on treads. :D hehehe
jckrypton 2 months ago
In the Euro Front Shermans were coffins on treads....on the Pacific Front. they were the OMFG CANS OF WHOOPASS on treads. :D hehehe
jckrypton 2 months ago
ハゴたんカワイソス(´；ω；｀)
MkTIHAtas 2 months ago
The Stormtrooper syndrom...
moROCKnRoll 2 months ago
its good to see people having actual debates in the comments and not flame wars
SliqhtlyStoopid 2 months ago
was it made in 1895? thought tanks were invented in the 1910s
jason200912 3 months ago
@jason200912 Tanks were invented at the near end of WW1
Mega102222 3 months ago
The best tanks of those days had germans. they had the tigers, panthers and other types. only problems were engine faults which were caused by overloading.
9antsa6 3 months ago 9
@9antsa6
Soviets had the IS2 and ISU152
warmoviesboy 3 months ago
@warmoviesboy IS-2 was a snack to tiger II and the ISU-152 was so clumsy that destroying that was a pease of cake to infantry. and ISU was used more as an artillery that tank destroyer. russians beated germans by their number. if it was 1VS1 the german would win. and germans had the mighty jadgtiger and tiger II.
9antsa6 3 months ago
@9antsa6 Nope your wrong the King Tiger had a hard time penetrating an IS front armor even from 600m. Plus less than 500 were made and almost half didn't even do anything but cost the Germans resources. It needed 1 gallon of gas to travel 2 miles...lol. It was too late Soviets had air power and could bomb anywhere they wanted too. Tell the ISU 152 was crap to the tiger crews that had their turrets blown off.
warmoviesboy 3 months ago
@warmoviesboy yeah. when a tiger I met ISU-152, it wasnt a tiger no more. but i have been figering out a few things:
1. IS had weaker armor, it was slower, but it had better gun than tiger II.
2. tiger II's were almost al of them participated to battle, most of them take part to ardennein campaing and the eastern front campaing
9antsa6 3 months ago
@9antsa6
Yeah but the tiger II weighed 69 tons while the IS2 was 46 tons and the tiger had 180mm armor while the IS had 160mm. Either way both where good tanks but the Tiger II was much harder to produce.
warmoviesboy 3 months ago
@warmoviesboy yeha the produce part kinda sucked, but it was the best tank in ww2. and the german tank grews were better trained :DDD both great tanks
9antsa6 3 months ago
@9antsa6 Yeah both great tank :D
warmoviesboy 3 months ago
@9antsa6 ISU-52 is an assault gun which, I think, was called the Animal killer for killing Tigers and Panthers.
shaider1982 3 months ago
@shaider1982 it served as both, but it was mostly seen as artillery and it was effective tank killer, but when it faced infantry it was quite hopeless situation for ISU152.
9antsa6 3 months ago
@9antsa6 I think that was the case for all assault guns. Wars are sort of a rock paper scissors affair.
shaider1982 3 months ago
@9antsa6 Germans had the best tanks of the war in terms of firepower and armor. However, by no means were their production efficient and therefore their numbers were overwhelmingly inferior (barely 1,300 tiger tanks against well over 50,000 T-34s for example). Also, their mobility was crap compared to the allies. Tigers and all their heavy armor bogged down frequently, ran out of fuel too fast, and suffered a lot of mechanical problems. They had amazing tanks, but just not enough of them.
marine9588 2 months ago
@marine9588 yea... but probably the best german tank was the panther, which had 75mm cannon and almost 100mm armor and it was builded about 6000 pieces. and after putting speed limiter to their engines, the engine broblems ran out.
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 Yeah I agree. The panther is considered by most historians as the best tank in all of WWII for its great balance in the three key factors of tanks: firepower, armor, and mobility. The panther's tank destroyer varient, the jagdpanther was the best tank destroyer of the war in my opinion. The Tiger II and Jagdtiger are awesome too but they were pushed wayy over their limits.
marine9588 2 months ago
@marine9588 well. they couldnt enymore develope panther because of the new IS-series which overwhelmed panther in ewery factors... so they made tiger 2 and jadgtiger. :)
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 What about the russian tanks? Don't forgett them...
Siddich 2 months ago
@Siddich well they had the T-34 which defeated ewery german tank until 1942 when tigers and panther came to frontlines. anfter that came the T-34-85, IS-2 and ISU-152 and many others...
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 Actually the Panzer 4 was generally accepted to be a match for the T-34, but not the KV-1. And panthers were first used at the battle of Kursk in 1943. You are however correct about the Tiger. The IS-2 however was sadly a poor tank, due to the fact that its 122 mm gun was not as penetrative as it should have been, and the lack of space for much ammunition. It should also be noted that the Germans generally had superior gun sights. No offence meant, I am a fanatic of ww2 stuff :)
Tinchle21 2 months ago
@Tinchle21 i think that the pz4's early versions wery easily defietable by the original T-34. soon after realizing that they added more powerful cannon and sideplates to pz4. But if you comepare the production rate between tiger II and IS-2... the IS would win for shore, but still i like german tanks more.. :DD
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 they still have the best
369NICK963 2 months ago
@369NICK963 who? the germans or the russians??
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 You forgot about the Russians, there tanks mascaraed the German tanks and the french tanks
talkingmonkey1000 2 months ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@talkingmonkey1000 whit their great numbers not in their quality... and when they made those russian tanks at the factories they didnt put to their armor the most critical element... nickle which made the armor thougher. but still Tiger II is the best tank of WW2
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 You mean the tank that Joahim Piper called in Ardenes "immovable crap"? Koenigstiger was too large, too heavy and too expensive to produce. Decision of making tank like this greatly reduced the possible potential of Panzerwaffe. It was much better to produce more PzKpfw V, that were much more effective, more reliable (G version), and needed less fuel. The only advantage of this tank is 88-mm cannon. But Panther's 7,5 cm KwK 42 L/70, was sufficient to fight any allied tank.
Florek112 2 months ago
@Florek112 king tiger did not fitt to ardens but it did do the best results at eastern front where several kilometres lenght of plains ruled the landskape... ower there king tiger was its best when the range of russian wasnt enough. and the reason why they made it so heavy was because it needed more armor to stand IS-2 122mm ammo. and yes, i would prefer panther more in other specs but tiger 2 was also a moral weapon which caused fear in allies and respect in axis...
9antsa6 2 months ago 4
@9antsa6 But it brought Third Reich closer to the end of war. Lost war. When Koenigstiger came into service, Germans were pushed away from "russian flat landscape". Range didn't even matter so much, because of accuracy. You had pretty average chance of hitting the target, on a range, where Panther's cannon were sufficient. But, even than, what gives You the best cannon, when there is high possibility, that tank will break? And You don't have enough fuel?
Florek112 2 months ago
@9antsa6 BTW: "Fear of Tigers" among allied soldiers is a myth. There are no relations, where allied soldiers withdrawn, because Tigers came to the battlefield. They were rather used to situation, that when they met German tanks, they were calling air support. And it was normal. No matter it was Tiger or something else. There are no evidence, that allies were fearing Tiger, or Koenigstiger more than other German weapon. It's a legend.
Florek112 2 months ago
@Florek112 Its not a legend. in normandy several soldiers reported thousands of tigers to their officers and in that sector there was only a few tiger. and it tigers truely inspirated the ordinary german infantry. and according true facts a german tiger destroyed 24 shermans in normandy in just few hours. and by the way do you know any panther ace who served in ww2, because i know several german tiger aces (michale Wittman, kurt knispel (jadgtiger) and otto carius) but no panther aces.tigerrule
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 Ernst Barkmann, Franz Bake for example. There were many aces on Panther's, StuG's even Pz IV's. Wittmann achieved many of his kills on Sturmgeschutz, and Tiger I. The action You're talking about is Villers-Bocage, and was made by Wittmann. He destroyed even more tanks, not only Shermans. But it was also made on Tiger I, not II. Help of any armored vehicle was inspiring to soldiers. And give me ONE accident, of allied soldiers retreating because Tigers appeared. One.
Florek112 2 months ago
@Florek112 yes i know i was talking about both of them... but most of the aces where made with tiger's, because of their efficiency and armor.
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 You told (quote:) "several tiger aces [...] but no panther aces". Yes, many, (not most) of tank aces were made with Tiger. But Tiger I, not II! Two completely different tanks. And You were talking about Koenigstiger as "the best tank of WW2". Which I can't agree, and I gave arguments why. Of course You can have Your own opinion. And You still didn't prove me, or gave any example, that allied soldier feared Tigers more than Panthers or other armor. Thanks for discussion BTW
Florek112 2 months ago
@Florek112 please sir... dont get all sveatty. its a matter of opinion that which tank you would prefer, but tiger 2 was quit undefeatable in face to face combat, but hard to manourfacture and expensive. and why tiger is so fearsome among allies: tiger's 88 grow fear in allied tankers when they knew that tehir cannon couldnt penetrate it. and from tiger were spread loads of propaganda in america and you cant deny that tiger is the most known tank in ww2 with sherman and t34.
9antsa6 2 months ago
@9antsa6 Don't call me sir, please, I don't feel so old yet ;). Tiger II was almost undefeatable (in one on one fight) for majority of allied tanks in equal conditions. If it had fuel and wasn't broken, and wasn't shot from side or back. But the same You can talk about Tiger I, and Panther. BTW: Panther's 7,5 cm KwK 42, compared to Tiger's 8,8 cm KwK 36, had better (a little) penetration, and a bit worse than KwK 43 from Tiger II. Smaller caliber, was leveled by higher muzzle velocity.
Florek112 2 months ago
@9antsa6 To end: Yes, Tiger is a legend. Allied soldiers were sometimes calling Tigers entirety of German panzerwaffe. That's why so many reports of Tigers in Normandy, what You noticed. It's understandable for me that it can make impression, because it was heaviest, biggest, and very powerful tank that created respect. But I'm a historian by profession, I base on pure facts, and it had disadvantages I mentioned that in my opinion disqualify it as a "best" tank. Greetings for You. ;)
Florek112 2 months ago
@9antsa6 You are completely wrong, it is a common misconception that German tanks were the best. They were not. The panther was outdated by WWII standards, and the Tiger was plagued with problems. People think they were the best due to Germany's initial success with blitzkrieg. France in fact has superior tanks but used them terribly. The soviet t-34 was superior. Remember that Germany had virtually nothing 8 years before the war. They were very behind in tank technology.
njdevil281 2 months ago
@njdevil281 He's maybe a little bit wrong, but You're wrong also. Panther outdated? Tiger outdated? So which allied tanks were not outdated, if these German tanks were? In late 43' for example, when these tanks were in common service (Tiger from 42')? And the only tank, that could stand firefight with them was IS-2 at that time (and we have to remember that it wan't common until 44')?
Florek112 2 months ago 2
@njdevil281 and if german tanks were outdated, what were the allied tanks... and the end of blitzkrieg peroid was caused because hitlers mistakes when he didnt fully invade england. hitler was obsedded to concuer russia and he almost forget ewerything else...
9antsa6 2 months ago
@njdevil281 Didn't I just reply to you on another video? In any case, the Panther didn't even exist at the start of the war. The biggest weakness of German tanks was their lack of ability to produce them in quantity. The reason Germany failed to defeat Russia was Hitler's idiotic ideal to aid Italy. If the German Army had have 4 more weeks of good weather things may have been totally different. The German Army on the Eastern front were not geared for a defensive winter battle.
BayouCityHtown 5 days ago
@9antsa6 I hurd that the Russians had tanks more armord tanks
TheNinjanordundor 1 month ago
@TheNinjanordundor what do you mean with that sentense?
9antsa6 1 month ago
@9antsa6 Sorry, I ment that the Russians had tanks that were more armord.
TheNinjanordundor 1 month ago
@9antsa6 The Tiger and Tiger II are engineering nightmares, the transmission and the egine are way to weak fo rtanks of their size. Another Problem are the otto-motors that they use instead of diesel-egines.The Panther and the Panzer IV are the best of the bunch. The Stugs are awesome and the Jagdpanther. The Maus is simple Lunacy. We got some good tanks and some that were just nightmares, and i'm german.
LupusAries 2 weeks ago
@LupusAries Ok... well maus was a bit too much. And pz4 and panther were awesome, but When T-34 came to the battlefield the pz4 was quit useless (in most of cases). Tiger's were a "fast" answer to the soviet T-34 and later by the IS. and most of WW2 tanks had several engine faults at their first days, but later they were fixed.
9antsa6 2 weeks ago
@LupusAries Ewen your "best of the bunch" panther sufered several engine faults at its first battle at kursk, most of the panther at kursk didnt ewen make it to the battle because their engines were broken..
9antsa6 2 weeks ago
@9antsa6 That happens if you don't finish trials before doing the first combat operation. Well it still had some problems later, sometimes, though much less frequently than the Tiger. Actually the upgunned PzIV- the F2 and later versions could handle the T-34, as well as the Stug III, which was in the winter of 1941 the only german AFV able to deal with the KV-1 and the T-34. True the Tiger was pressed into service ASAP, otherwise there would've been a redesign.
LupusAries 2 weeks ago
@LupusAries yes i totally agree, but still the T-34 was a bad opponent to upped pz4 and the germans new that and started develop other tanks such ass the tiger and panther
9antsa6 2 weeks ago
@9antsa6 True, very true. I think they would've needed a full redesign of the PanzerIV chassis giving it sloped armor as well. Somewhat like the Pz III/IV design. And the thing is, the Panther was a well rounded tank but on the Panther II they were again trying to make it heavier. After all the problems they had with the Tiger and they tried to do the same with the panther, talk about not learning lessons. luckily though, for all of us, the nazis lost.
LupusAries 2 weeks ago
@LupusAries Well i donno... i have always been wondering that what would world look like if germans would have won the WWII.
9antsa6 1 week ago
lol the fack would u use a mortar to take out a tank
andersdesertfoxV 3 months ago
@andersdesertfoxV The mortar was not shooting to kill a tank, it is used to strip the infantry support from the tank. A tank is more easily killed by infantry if there is no infantry supporting the tank. The Japanese realized this to and went to great efforts to strip American infantry from a tank so suicide mine attacks could be used to kill an American tank.
Semper Fi !
Toddinfantry 3 months ago
what movie is this?
WeepingLyric270 3 months ago
Best gun in Modern warfare 3
Gladioter1903 3 months ago
Шерман охуенен!
Garruskote 3 months ago
I feel sorry for the guys on the roof.
YambidiBlamBlam 3 months ago
Success experience in this war seems to have made Americans believe in war. Do you think gun-fighting clears every problem among people and nations without any grudge?
taroxgoemon 3 months ago
It's like a piece of fucking foil paper on wheels ahaha
xCh34pShOtx 3 months ago
japanese WW2 tanks sucked
1bearcatf8f 4 months ago 25
@1bearcatf8f Indeed, Japanese armor in WWII was atrocious. One had to respect their infantry, but their armor capability was a joke. American AT weaponry at the time could easily obliterate them, and that should tell alot about their quality.
Warmaker01 3 months ago
@Warmaker01 There infantry was brutal but worked using WW1 style charging tactic's,they infact had some Medium tanks but they came out to late to ever be widely used.
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f i was going to ask the same, does any1 know any ww2 japanese tanks, the germans had panther tiger , russians is t34 su but japan...
nolifemerc 3 months ago
@nolifemerc Aside from the Type-95 theres the type 97 also
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f The Allied tanks weren't much better
boyrichboy 3 months ago
@boyrichboy I think everyone know's that lol.What japanese tank could kill an american tank?
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f They had poduced a few tanks neer the end of the war that could destroy a sherman like the Type 4 Chi To ad Type 4 Chi Ha which both had 75mm gun and up to 75mm armor. They were never used in combat though because only a few were produced and were planned to be used in the defence of Japan.
AUG351 3 months ago
@AUG351 Japanese tank's were not produced in number's like our Sherman's.The sherman was a well balanced tank the ha-go was only fast and manuverble
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Yeah, allot greater numbers of shermans were produced because of America's capability to produce large numbers of them, only over 2,000 Type 95 ha-go tanks were produced because the Japanese didn't have as great the capability to produce them but they were easy to produce.
AUG351 3 months ago
@AUG351 we had car companies of every kind building tanks in the US
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@boyrichboy sorry read your comment wrong.American tank's were better.Also easier to mass produce
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Japanese tanks were easier to produce than American tanks but shermans and M3s were still easy to pruduce but the Japanese tank used less materials and pruduced them in masses at he start of the war altough the Japanese were runnin lower and lower on materials as the war went on.
AUG351 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Japanese tanks were poor in quality as Japan didn't have any need for effective tanks prior, say, 1943. Americans had very few tanks and those sucked big time before Sherman entered service, and China had pretty much zero tanks, just infantry. And, in the end, Japan didn't even need tanks. Shermans were better but not decisive - only a few battlefields in Pacific War was suitable for tanks, and a few tanks can only do so much. Speaking as a former tank operator here.
Kuhlfurst 3 months ago
@Kuhlfurst The M3 wasnt a bad tank.that was a light tank though.The Sherman's were produced in larger number's with an obviously bigger gun.In the pacific japanese light tanks worked better because there small and can get into tight space's.But say on battle's such as Iwo Jima would have been for tank's up to a certain part.
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f M3 was a lousy tank as it had an incredibly high profice, limited drive space for its main gun and it was far below its German counterparts in general effectiveness. As a former tank operator I can say that M3, while not inherently shitty, was of really bad design. Even the Sherman had fundamental design flaws, such as its proneness to catching fire when taking hits to the engine (lead to losing a lot of crews that survived the actual impact)
Kuhlfurst 3 months ago
@Kuhlfurst It wasnt that bad of a tank.It was still better than the Type 95 and most japanese tank's.But the Sherman was mass produced while german,and japanese tank's were not.Beside's with the arrival of the M26 Pershing we could tackle any tank we faced
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@Kuhlfurst But firepower,protection the m3 sucked.Speed wasnt bad for it.It was a light tank and used for infantry support also serving as a recon tank because of its speed
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@Kuhlfurst It is not the engine you knuckle head. M4, and any other tanks, catch fire because a penetrating shell would detonate the ammo inside the tank. The Allies learn to wet their ammo which reduce the chance of their shells to blow up. If you care to look at any Soviet-German tank battles, you will see plenty of T-34s on fire. It rare for the Panther and Tiger I to catch on fire because they are mostly penetrate from the sides. Lesser chance of hitting the ammo.
Normacly 2 months ago
@Kuhlfurst M3 is a scout tank. The high profile allow it to spot enemy over hills and other obstacles. It actually better than or equal to its German counterparts. Such as the Panzer I/II, both design as infantry support/scout armor. Panzer III was built to fight tanks and the Panzer IV, earlier model, was built solely for infantry support. It was not fast enough to be a scout.
Normacly 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f The Japanese Army had inferior equipment as a whole compared to the Navy and Air Force. Even the rifles and guns sucked.
shaider1982 3 months ago
@shaider1982 The Tanks sucked,the Rifle's didnt suck,they were accurate and deadly.The Type-99 LMG was deadly to.The Type 100 smg sucked.the Japanese had to copy the M1 Garand by the end of the war wich didnt see action
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f Hmm, so almost everything sucked for the Japanese Imperial Army. I've even read about the Luger copy that was liable to misfire while in the holster. Not sure of the name. Man, I wonder why they were give such inferior (for the most part) equipment.
shaider1982 3 months ago
@shaider1982 The nambu pistol is what your thinking of.I'd still take a Colt.45 over them because 1 chest shot up close will drop anyone.
1bearcatf8f 3 months ago
@1bearcatf8f they didnt even really qualify as tanks, more like tankettes
Anonymous52550 2 months ago
@Anonymous52550 Tankettes are alot smaller
1bearcatf8f 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f japanese "tanks" were tankettes, roughly the size of a small modern van
Anonymous52550 2 months ago
@Anonymous52550 Most Japanese tanks were LIGHT and medium tanks.they had Tankettes to wich are an entirly different class
1bearcatf8f 2 months ago
@1bearcatf8f they still do
369NICK963 2 months ago
hmmm easiest way to kill jap infantry is just trying to shoot at a japanese tank... seems japanese training is to clump up behind a tank in the midst of a mortar bombardment......
ZinXlX 4 months ago
another propaganda movie...uff
bugna1968 4 months ago
@bugna1968 So Sad! Did the Americans really need that?? Bad Bad Japanese Good Good Americans!
Lee78072 4 months ago
Thumbs up for the worst tank gunner in the world.
Jakethesnake1281 4 months ago
@Jakethesnake1281 its a typical WWII move where alway die the nazis and japanese soldiers and the americans never die. thats why the tank dont hit them.
Eorthil 4 months ago
@Eorthil Just becuase one scene dosn't show the mortar team getting killed dosn't mean its made to where no Americans die. Its based on what really happened, based off someones account. I know of movies that are biased and show only the enemy dying but this show isn't biased its based on what happened to those individuals.
AUG351 4 months ago 2
@425jeonsa Exactly
TalonMercenary 4 months ago
America Rocks
tornadodude1609 4 months ago
Shut Up I've watched every single episode at least 5 times and I've read With the Old Breed. I didn't say a juxtaposition between reality and the miniseries I said between reality and hollywood.
CitizenJohnSmith 5 months ago
@ThePerfectRed Exactly. If you read the book written by Sledge it's quite a juxtaposition between reality and hollywood.
CitizenJohnSmith 5 months ago
Comment removed
jc1200u 5 months ago
@CitizenJohnSmith
This is from the miniseries "The Pacific" which has at least ten 1-hour episodes. If you watch the miniseries you will see many American and Japanese soldiers getting killed and maimed...It is really bloody and horrible to watch at times.
You cannot judge the miniseries by just watching 2 minutes of just one episode.
The miniseries is based on the two memoirs of U.S. Marines Eugene Sledge and Robert Leckie.
jc1200u 5 months ago
What fantasy movie is this crap?!!
skyforer 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skyforer Why do you call it fantasy?
Toddinfantry 4 months ago
In Europe the Sherman was not good but in Asia the Sherman was a god
morejitas 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Did ONE SINGLE American die in that scene? I love holywood.. makes you wonder why the war lasted years instead of hours.
ThePerfectRed 2 months ago 32
---------------------------------------------------
This is from the miniseries "The Pacific" and yes you will see many soldiers getting killed and maimed
You can watch this YouTube video of The Pacific - Part 8 - Iwo Jima Beach Landing to see that this is true w w w . youtube . com/watch?v=98IXQRkVYf0&feature=related
jc1200u 5 months ago
This moie had been prodeced by a moter fucker racist. Thank you dear shits of burd racist.
From the colored people that you hate sincerely .
Fuck baasskap GOD bless you. (^ ^)
sendaiueno 5 months ago
The Japanese weren't bad soldiers, this is largely a myth. What hampered the Japanese was often flawed tactical and strategic thinking and they were led by officers who were driven more by honour than by professionalism. Sure, their equipment was largely sh** but with that sh** they were on the brink of conquering most of Asia. Also, never forget the contribution of the American army who fought alongside the marines and often in larger numbers.
FrancoHitlini 5 months ago
Any armored vehicle is hell for infantry. Even with proper anti armor weapons.
deltafreelancer 5 months ago
guys just because the type 95 had small armor and mechanical flaws doesnt mean it wasnt hell for our guys on the ground
AnExoticWhopper 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
0:42 did anyone noticed the second japanese tank in front just "magically" disappears?
jmantime 5 months ago
@commisarmike Well yeah I know it's a medium but compared to the armor and firepower of most of the tanks it was fighting in Europe like the Panther and Tiger, it might as well have been a light tank. Yet it's armor and weapon are superior to most if not all of the Imperial Japanese tanks it fought in the Pacific . But you can't the Japanese for that. They were never intended to be very heavy. The weight would be a lability in the damp tropical inviroments that they were intended to fight in.
ShikaStoner 6 months ago
Comment removed
ShikaStoner 6 months ago
They call that thing tank？
whyempire 6 months ago
The Sherman tank was good for this war not in Germany's tiger
SteeliesOrbs 6 months ago
When people talk about WW2 Japanese tank, especially this Type95 Light tank, they tend to forget American M2, Polish 7TP, French R35, German Panzer1.
Do you think only Japan had light tank like this Type 95 Ha-go? Why do people try to compare this tank with other Mid-size tank like M4 Sherman?
It's so stupid.
yuzotasaki 6 months ago
@yuzotasaki Not to be a jerk or anything but that's because those were the ones that were predominately used in combat by the Japanese WWII. Their heaviest medium tank to ever reach mass production was the Type 3 Chi-Nu. And the war ended before the 166 made could even see combat. There was the Type 97 Chi-Ha and the Type 89 Chi-Ro but those were only 14 and 12 tons. The Type 5 Chi-Ri and Type 95 Heavy Tank never really got beyond the prototype stage...
ShikaStoner 6 months ago
@yuzotasaki I hope you realize Type 95 Ha-go was inferior even to M2
M2 had a better gun, better mobility and were reliable.
Type 95, however, had numeral mechanical flaws and although its gun was at same calibur, it had inferior armor penetration compared to that of M2 which was worsened by it using inferior ammunition.
And if you start comparing it to R-35, its isn't even fair due to R-35 having a much better armor while having about the same gun.
dlxowns322 6 months ago
It is not a tank some kind of a tankette
steelhelex 6 months ago
@commisarmike It's medium piece of shit tank.
dpsherry 6 months ago
I've saw several Japanese tanks at a California Army National Guard post.
To call them "tanks" is to abuse the term. The gun was laughable, the armor was non-existant, and with my butt in the tank commander's seat my feat were in the driver's seat.
I think calling the Armed Recon Vehicles might be more accurate...
Waltham1892 6 months ago
All this talk about tigers. If the Japanese were building Tiger tanks, it would have been like... "Hey Sarge, during low tide we saw this weird looking turret sticking out of the sand"
NonsenseFabricator 6 months ago
Comment removed
darkwonder80 6 months ago
Both sides are joke , if there is one Tiger tank they would run like crazy without air support because they will need couple of tanks like this craps to beat just one single Tiger
Nerzul4o 6 months ago
Comment removed
AUG351 6 months ago
so this is the pacific show
TheChato280 6 months ago
Wanna know when your fucked? When you fight Angry Americans.
marineooo5 6 months ago
Americans never die in American movies.
Konig1985 6 months ago
@Konig1985
Watch the damn series. Its called THE PACIFIC.
I've never seen so much american death from an american director before.
JinKazama92 6 months ago
fucking jap tanks! when you play MEN OF WAR! u understand the true nature of how much fail they contain. fucking ha-go!!!
bouldy2 6 months ago
@bouldy2 yeah. 13mm of armour doesn't even stop a .50cal
AlternateArtisan 5 months ago
Haha the pacific was about the only battlefield where shermans were the superior tanks. Ah well you cant be good at everything can ya...
LiezAllLiez 7 months ago
These tanks were designed to fight on the Chinese mainland against poorly equipped Chinese forces. They did well in that instance. But, after the Japanese expanded their empire into the Pacific, very little time or energy was spent on tank R&D, because who would expect tank battles on little Pacific islands? That's why when the Japanese met the American forces, they were caught with their pants down. They did attempt producing heavier tanks, but they never made much of a showing.
GaijinGDB 7 months ago
From where was this clip taken? :O
themangix357 7 months ago
@themangix357 The HBO series "The Pacific"
GaijinGDB 7 months ago
That's not a real sherman xD
barraki150 7 months ago
0:51 Faggot !
Fire!
Faggot !
Fire ! :)
Kolashov 7 months ago
gee i wonder what a tiger 2 can do to a type 95 if a sherman could do that...
marine9588 7 months ago
Shermans were a piece of shit compared to the German Tigers and Panthers but when put head to head with an even shittier Jap tank, its a monster
marine9588 7 months ago 2
@marine9588
That's why they called it the panzer of the pacific...
Totallyfizzle 6 months ago
@marine9588 japanese tank existed only to make the Sherman look good.
NewAround92 3 months ago
Did ONE SINGLE American die in that scene? I love holywood.. makes you wonder why the war lasted years instead of hours.
ThePerfectRed 7 months ago 52
@ThePerfectRed Watch the series until you make stupid assumptions. The Americans take quite an asskicking in many firefights.
thenoobfactor 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@thenoobfactor *before you make stupid assumptions
thenoobfactor 7 months ago
@ThePerfectRed well, seeing as though the japs lost over 2million soldiers fighting JUST the americans and the US lost 416000 fighting in europe AND the pacific the fact that the japs were slaughtered in this vid is actually very accurately depicted XD
hotpocketpoison 6 months ago