4/5 Greatest Tank Battles - Battle of El Alamein

[MrFiringpin]

After sherman received hit -it immediately started burning=crew was instantly grilled like a chicken wings-RIP these buggers

Sherman tank was born as a product of bribery -that´s all.

[TinPanduric]

Lol, what are you talking about ? StG 44 was the best assault rifle of WW2, Kalashnikov was made on that example, ME 262 - first jet force airplane, not to mention, V1 and V2 rockets, Manhattan project ? Made by German scientists... Apollo project ? Werner von Braun.... Top Nazi scientist.... FACTS <3

[TinPanduric]

German were masters of battle in ww2. They were always underdogs and they made massive casualties on the allies. Their technology at the beginning of the war was magnificient. BUT NUMBERS ARE NUMBERS and always will be.

[adamcrookedsmile]

@TinPanduric

Not really, the russians had the T-34 already in 1941 and the Wehrmacht had nothing as good. The US infantrymen had the semiautomatic Garand while germans had the WW1 vintage K98k. What the germans did have was better radio usage and combined arms tactics - they had prepared for the war because they wanted a war. German encryption technology was defeated as well. Germany was not technologically superior, overall. Only in tanks really.

[MitchofSmeg]

*sits patiently waiting for kingforce*

[903strikerunit]

09:17 bitch please. compared to the tiger the sherman is crap

[MitchofSmeg]

@903strikerunit "compared to the tiger"...........

Compared to the black prince, the tiger is crap. Same logic.

[903strikerunit]

@MitchofSmeg errmm... what is this "black prince" ??

[MitchofSmeg]

@903strikerunit Mk7 churchill with a 17 pounder (iirc plans to upgun to 20 pounder or 77mmHV were suggested aswell) which had more armor then any tiger and iirc more then the tiger 2 aswell as the gun which could very easily take on the big tiger (and iirc the tiger 2 was in danger to the gun too)

[903strikerunit]

@MitchofSmeg thanks greg..

[Panzer05100]

rommel move his last tank reserves north because of the australian 9th division making ground along the coast but they couldnt head back south because they also had the last of their fuel reserves

[TheLordZhufor]

hmm strange

the shermans early 75mm gun was a low velocity all purpuse gun

the panzer 4 f2 longbarreled 75mm gun was a high velocity anti tank gun primarily

the armour of the panzer 4 f2 and the sherman are almost the same strengh and the fighting range of the f2 was higher

why are they saying that the sherman was the most powerful tank on the field? -.-

[Forge322]

T-34-85's were also known to be rolling out of the factory and break 2km's down the road, also the late war Sherman (M4A3E8) had a 76mm gun, not a 75mm. This was an improvement to them, the E8 also had armor, speed and reliability improvements. Don't know why people picked the first M4 design and picked the late T-34 design...and thought they were even to compare. >_> Like comparing the M3 lee to the M1A1 MBT.

[Panzer05100]

@Forge322

the "firefly" produced by the british and canadians had the 76mm or the british name the 17 pound gun very very good just 1 of them took out 3 tigers with 4 shells but only a few thousand were produced, their was not enough to make it a key tank which won the war but non the less it was a sigh of relief for the allies

[USA4July1776]

HOOAH!!!

[MrRenegademovies]

i love how in this one they sing the Shermans praises but in every other WW2 episode involving them it is coined as under powered and weak.

[merl0c]

@MrRenegademovies Remember that this is the Afrika corps they're battling. They were using the older Panzer III and only a few anti tank versions of Panzer IV. The other instances Shermans were compared to the Panther and Tiger, whom were designed to counter allied armor.

[MitchofSmeg]

@MrRenegademovies Because at this point of the war its pretty much "yeah fuck you" equal and better then what the germans have.

[MrCapKorzeniowski]

@MrRenegademovies

True, - the Germans would soon name it "The Tommy Cooker"

[zeusgarcia97]

03:39 kinda wierd cause the tracks has mud and its the middle of the desert.xD

[MrPro897]

shermans are better than T-34 because of its targeting optics. the possibility for a T-34 to hit a target at 500 m is 40%

[ThePanzerWarMachine]

@MrPro897

erm no. for instance, in 1951 when Korean T-34-85's came across M4a3 E8 Sherman the sherman got whiped out by the T34's

[maggottyblackie]

@ThePanzerWarMachine take a look at korea land 1st

[dappadan22]

@ThePanzerWarMachine so the best tank in the korean war? dunno what the brits had at the time. i think it was the heavy tank used until the chieftan. forget the name

[ThePanzerWarMachine]

@dappadan22

see the Episode of Tank Overhaul The Chieftan tank. that was the most lethal and feared Tank During the War.

[iamweejonny]

@ThePanzerWarMachine

Incorrect bud...I think you are getting mixed up with the Centurion....The Chieftan Tank came out years after the Korean war.

[dappadan22]

@ThePanzerWarMachine ahh yeah i just watched it, is defo an awsome piece of kit and obviously used to great effect during the war it also seems more powerful and more heavily armoured than the super sherman m4's

[Brera011]

@dappadan22 That must have been the Centurion. In the fifties this was the best armoured tank in the world. It was used until the late seventies , early eighties, in many countries untill it was replaced by Chieftains, Leopards and others.

[dappadan22]

@Brera011 yeah i think you are right there. it must have been the centurion which was i think designated a 'super heavy tank' i think it was actually the biggest tank used by the allies and south korean forces closely followed by the pershing. i think both tanks were very good but the superior armour made the centurion 'almost' unstoppable. i know there was a battle involving the gloucester regiment and a handful of chieften tanks at a river crossing a few hundred men held out against thousands.

[MitchofSmeg]

@dappadan22 The bits also used the churchill tank which completely flattened any tank they came across in the korean war iirc.

[ethanreipold88]

@dappadan22 M26 Pershing was the best in my book 90mm high velocity AT gun meant to knock out panthers and tigers and the T 34 had 82mm? the Pershing was definitely the best tank in Korea.

[dappadan22]

@ethanreipold88 i would agree that it was a toss up between the pershing and the centurion but if i'm not mistaken the pershing used a 90mm smoothbore gun, wheras the cheiften used a rifle bored gun for improved accuracy. not sure about the armour specs of each at the time but i know many where 'modified' by their crews on the field so i guess even tanks of the same type cant be compared accuratly.

[shaydyknight]

@ThePanzerWarMachine your wrong, t-34 got whipped , terrible tank. Stop acting liek you know everything on every post. lol

[ThePanzerWarMachine]

@shaydyknight

Aperantly you've never spoken to a person who actually were there?

[shaydyknight]

@ThePanzerWarMachine Both my greatgrandfathers served 1 just passed last year. H eserved in battle of the bulge and my other Greatgrandfather many different areas. I served in the marines and was able to get to know their war history very well while in since I was lucky enough to have the chance. I also hold many documents and all kidns of picutres, even footage.

[rifephotos]

@ThePanzerWarMachine The T34-85 had the high velocity 85 mm versus the crappy 75mm gun from the sherman. . The 85mm was really accurate.

[MitchofSmeg]

@rifephotos Because comparing tanks built at different times and 1 being upgraded and the stock varient of the other is fair yes?

You want to compare the 34-85 with a sherman? Try the 76mm gun, or the Jumbo.

[OnEEmONErD]

@ThePanzerWarMachine erm no. that was not the case Easy 8 werent whiped out by 34-85. I dont know where u found that but check again to see if its actually that accurate

[GuessIIIwho]

@MrPro897 I'll add that the T-34 had much better capabilities against nature. T-34 was designed to cross trough snow, mud, water, and all that made the Russia for ages.

[aclock2]

@MrPro897 If you said Tiger is better than T-34. Then I may agree in some aspects. Sherman, lol

[MrPro897]

@aclock2 1 Tiger is far better than 1 T-34, but i didn t say something like that before.

[aclock2]

@MrPro897 Never mind , now you say it ^ ^. Tiger is technically better in term of fire power and armor. But it's worse in maneuverability and pathetic in productivity. So it may be better, but not much better. Of course you don't take cost into account, there are tanks that even better than Tiger.

[merl0c]

@MrPro897 I do not know about the optics of a Sherman, but Shermans 75mm gun could not battle any Panthers or Tigers from the front. T-34 armed with the 85mm variant could penetrate those tanks at fair ranges. The T-34 had all around sloped armor, the flank of Sherman was completely flat. The T-34 was faster, and it had longer operational ranges. The T-34 is lacking in terms of comfort and optics, but I'd say in sheer combat performance, it's better to have a usable gun than a ineffective sniper

[MrCapKorzeniowski]

@MrPro897

The T-34 and Stalins willingness to sacrifice thousands of men is the reason why Nazi Germany didn´t win the war

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano So you deny calling someone a "shithead"?

Anyways, questioning you're character is irrelevant. I do not know where you get you're data from, but it's inaccurate. The BR-350P was an excessively rare round even until 1944, and due to the lack of quality controls could vary to the extreme in effectiveness making standard tests impossible. It's effectiveness has been marked at 43mm of penetration at 1,000m to 75mm at 1,000m with post war rounds penetrating 69mm at 1,000m.

[fanvanstan]

Keep in mind that Russian T-34 were already used in summer 1941. At that time it was an excellent tank with good armour, armament and mobility. It was better than the temporary Panzer III with a short 50 mm gun.

Sherman were used for the first time in late 1942 it had a slightly better gun, similar armour. It's mobility was ok. And the russians also had the heavier KV1.

[gortmundy01]

Sherman probably was the best known tank. I mean the Russians had Shermans while the western allies didnt have T34's so to be fair the Sherman fought on more theatres.

[gundog39]

@gortmundy01 You're right when you say the Russians had shermans, they also had M3 grant and valatine tanks. They didn't like the M3's at all and refered to them as death traps because of their high Silhouette. They were not overly impressed with the shermans either and felt that their T-34's were superior. I f the Russians had supplied us T-34's we would have fared a lot better because of the T-34's better armour and more powerful main cannon. I do respect the sherman as a good tank.

[XxxSakura101]

@gundog39 That is completely false, the Sherman had better armor AND a better gun than the T-34. Only in mobility did the T-34 do better than the M4.

[BigAndTall666]

"Some idiot comment without relation to the video..."  :-D

[CMDRFandragon]

When did the Crusader get upgunned to the 6lber?

[gmdimaano]

"The best known piece of mobile armor of the 2nd World War" The Sherman? Pfft. Yeah, right. That title belongs to the T-34.

[CMDRFandragon]

@gmdimaano Belongs to the Tiger or Panther.....the Allieds had no truly good tank, just ass ton loads of their crappy tanks.

[Tyco200]

@CMDRFandragon Well, Matilda and Valentine were outstanding at the beginning. M3 then became the best along with the Shermans (for their first appearance), and then eventually, T-34's last and finally "okay" modification, T-34-85.

[gmdimaano]

@CMDRFandragon I was emphasizing on "mobile", meaning, mobility and off-road performace in all types of terrain and weather conditions. I'd give it to the T-34. But, Yeah, hands down I'd agree with you, ton-for-ton, the Tiger and Panther were the best tanks of WW2.

[Tyco200]

@gmdimaano T-34? Right, dumbass. Wasn't the T-34 a horrible modified Sherman that had catastrophic failures? T-34 was a waste of lives. Horrible tank. Exposed munitions. Least the Sherman had okay compartments for crew, fuck wit!

[gmdimaano]

@Tyco200 read on history, shithead. the T-34 was nowhere like a Sherman in terms of design. Different suspension, engines and armor design. Granted the Sherman had better reliability, but the T-34 had better mobility, protection (sloped armor) and gun (F-34 > M3 L/40, early models)

Against heavier German panzers, the Sherman was a crappy tank. Panthers and Tigers made swiss-cheese out of it at any range.

[Normacly]

@gmdimaano Same go for the T-34. Also, the crappy Sherman won over the T-34 when they face each other.

[gmdimaano]

@Normacly That's attributed mainly due to the quality of crews and better doctrine. NoKor and Arab tankers were poor against their adversaries. Also, the Sherman was already upgraded then and I'm inclined to say that the later A3s were better than the T-34/85 primarily due to the better gun/optics of the former. But, comparing the early models of the two tanks (1941-43), the T-34 was better overall based on my previous comment.

[rockyblacksmith]

@gmdimaano

Totally agree! What just came to my mind in support of your opinion was a top ten ranking of tanks:

Sherman in tenth place, T-34 in first place. Clear enough in my opinion.

[XxxSakura101]

@rockyblacksmith You understand that program was completely ludicrous, yes? Very little of the information presented was accurate and it is programing like that , which turns people off to the history channel and military channel.

[gmdimaano]

@XxxSakura101 You mean like this show, which is on the history channel too. Like Dogfights, this show has its ridiculous moments too. Tell me, why can't Greatest Tank Battles feature battles like Sedan, Kassarine Pass and the Kharkov battles? American bias much?

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano I don't see anything wrong with the battles, or are you denying that said battles had not been worthy enough to call great tank battles? So long as the facts are accurate and both sides are represented as best as can be done, i say show every tank battle in history.

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano This means that the same gun could have wildly fluctuating results depending on the surface tested on.

I highly recommend knowing the BHN of the test surface. Soviet production between 1941-1944 had been highly unstable, with no quality controls, consistent testing, or even the same plans for each factory. This was further complicated by the fact that no record of the quality of the ammunition tested by the Soviets between 1941-1943 had been made.

[rone9292]

@gmdimaano its Canadian

[rockyblacksmith]

@XxxSakura101

I don't say that the series was good, but as long as they don't use completely wrong facts,

the ranking should give an idea of the quality difference of tanks. And I don't think they create the maximum ranking distance on two tanks the wrong way around.

[XxxSakura101]

@rockyblacksmith Just an example, the M4 had both a better gun and more armor than the T-34, yet they gave the M4 no points in armor or firepower and excellent marks for both to the T-34. They made no mention of the some of the greatest advantages of the M4, it's targeting optics, and gun stability, and they play to the myth that it's gasoline engine caused it to explode and burn. I have long since lost my respect for that type of programming.

[XxxSakura101]

@rockyblacksmith Very rarely does popular history tell anything other than what the public generally already believes to be true.

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano That is very wrong. The M4 had a upper frontal hull strength of 51mm sloped at 47 degrees, and a lower hull strength of 102mm sloped at 15 degrees, with 89mm of frontal turret armor. It's L/40 gun could get 76mm at 500m and 63mm at 1,000m against armor sloped at 30 degrees. The T-34 on the other hand, used a F-34 gun that could penetrate 69mm of armor at 500m and 60mm at 1,000m against non-sloped armor.

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano The T-34 also had 40mm of both frontal turret and upper hull armor, with it's upper hull sloped at a 40 degrees. It's lower hull also had 40mm of armor, but no slope. In both armor and firepower the M4 was superior to the T-34.

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano You really should not name call when you know nothing about the two, rely on other sources of information other then popular programming.

[gmdimaano]

@XxxSakura101 I didn't start the name-calling. Quit stinting your facts like these shows. Perhaps you should have quoted the F-34's APC and HEAT rounds. The penetration values are much higher than the one you quoted. Also, one of my sources only pegged the L/40's penetration at 68mm @ 500m and 60mm @ 1,000mm with the M61 round. FYI, I own a lot of books on history and stop acting as if you know me.

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano It's virtually identical to the BR-350A shell, except the fact it generally had superior penetration at 500m or less.

The BR-353A HEAT shell could only penetrate 75mm at 100m and 50mm at 500m, with rapidly deteriorating performance at range.

[XxxSakura101]

@gmdimaano I used the BR-350A shell, because it was the primary shell used by the F-34 gun until mid 1944.

I measured the L/40 with it's primary round from 1941-1943 the M72. There are several penetration tables available, each with a different result depending on the BHN of the armor used for the testing. For example, Italy typically tested it's guns against much lower BHN than Germany did.

[Tyco200]

@gmdimaano Sherman was godly in comparison. Crusader and M3 coming second to none. Best at the beginning was the British Valentine's cousin Matilda II!

[GjVj]

Remarkable testimony from survivors.