M51 Super Sherman in action at Santa Fe event 2010 .wmv

[changtiantian]

Tamiya (Japanese plastic model INC)released the scale model and the RC kit of this tank .

[hkhobby]

@changtiantian

That scale model better than the RC one .

[ChaosTicket]

the Super Sherman is an interesting idea to an old tank, mounting a 90mm and later 105mm, adding armor and other upgrades made a design made in the 1940s still useful in the 1950-60s.

[1bearcatf8f]

If this was in WW2 it would have been able to kill Tiger's and Panther's at range

[DJ118USMC]

Love how the M18 zooms in and out of frame. Beep! Beep!

[SMGJohn]

I like the Sherman and T-34

[sgtvanze02139]

i see a m18 hellcat

[Lasarus89]

the exhaust is in the rear deck??

[crpdst2003]

track life of Sherman Alone made it superior.....2000 miles plus to about 200 of a Panzer.....Transmission was way more reliable, efficient, and repairable....actually it was made to conquer Europe in 43 and the delay madei its opponents Tigers and Panthers instead of Mk III and MK IV's........so it meet German Army blooded on the Eastern front with improved tanks...but also those tanks were 80 percent in the east too....and they had no air cover.....they died too....

[tank3ful]

That Israeli super sherman was one hell of a tank. Still in service 30 years after ww-2 ended, these upgraded shermans served Israel well during the 67 and 73 wars. They kicked the crap out of all those Egyptian and Syrian made Russian T-series tanks. That 105mm main gun tore them to shreds.

[Tyco200]

@tank3ful Hell yea! Russia couldn't design a tank even close to the Western allies. American Shermans were byfar some of the best tanks ever built. Even in WWII, a Sherman armed with the M1 gun would rape a Tiger anyday.

[Hairysteed]

@Tyco200 Are you saying the Tiger can't take out that up-gunned Sherman?

[0puest0]

@Hairysteed .

Sherman vs Tiger ?, patetic. is like if a Panzer IV vs IS-7

and this shermans can rape a Tiger.

[Tyco200]

@Hairysteed Yes, the Tiger could penetrate the M4A1s with 76mm guns, but so could they, well over a thousand meters. The Tiger, being a slow, fragile, horribly over-designed piece of machinery, which cost the Germans too much materials and resources is in reality, the biggest, overly biased fauilure of the second world war. Second to the T-34. You could not out-turn the Sherman, for reasons of worrying for the loss of a wheel. The Turret's traversing speed was horrible to the Shermans.

[Hairysteed]

@Tyco200 Tiger can't take on an up-gunned Sherman?!? T-34 a failure?! What the fuck are you smoking?!

[ChaosTicket]

@Hairysteed The T-34 WAS a failure. By pre-war standards its sloped armor, and 76.2mm cannon were excellent. However when germany started fielding 75mm anti-tank guns, mounting it on Panzer 4s, and the introduction of heavier vehicles such as the Panther and Ferdinand, it was simply mass-produced.

they made the t-34-85 to replaced the t-34/76, that should end any discussion.

[Hairysteed]

@ChaosTicket You don't actually consider the Ferdinand a success, do you? Seriously, what planet am I on?!

[ChaosTicket]

@Hairysteed Successful? yes and no, it had excellent armor, a powerful and extremely accurate gun, but was horribly designed.

pretty much all WW2 tanks have good and bad points.

[jackzero99]

@ChaosTicket There is no such thing as a perfect tank, even today. All of today's tanks have good and bad points.

[jackzero99]

@ChaosTicket Any tank would be considered a failure when the next generation of tanks or weapons comes along. The American T-60 was a failure. It would be destroyed by any of today's tanks. The P-51 Mustang is a failure. It would have been crushed by any of the MiGs. The M1 Abrams will be a failure in a few years. The F-16 is already a failure.

[ChaosTicket]

@jackzero99 If you want to discuss things, PM me. Too bad this doesnt have any combat shots of the Super Sherman.

[Tyco200]

These Wolves killed Russian pigs/roaches like the T-54/55 deathtrap and its worst modification besides the T-72 known as "62" with heat rounds easily. Beautiful tank, still being used. Amazing how amazing it was that modifiable. We should've skipped the M-46, 47 for this babe!

[ajrhotrodz]

thats not a american tank its a Israeli tank based on the american Sherman

[MrCSXboy98]

@Panzerandi96 Germany called it a medium, but america called it a heavy

[MasonZairsoft]

@MrCSXboy98 So america's light tanks must have less than a mm thick armour.

[MrCSXboy98]

@MasonZairsoft you clearly dont understand the classification of vehicles. sorry, i didnt know you were retarded. Panther was classified as a medium in america due to its quickness and sloped armor design. plus it did not have the thickest side armor, and its ammo rack was the tank itself.

[MasonZairsoft]

@MrCSXboy98 Oh sorry I thought you were talking about the sherman. I'm betting if the panther was a heavy in america, Than the sherman would be a medium. simple math.

[MrCSXboy98]

@MasonZairsoft LOL. well, the shernan was easier to produce then the panzer 4, and had better maintance then the T-34, and had similar armor to the panzer 4. in that defense, panzer 4 is just as much of a light tank then a sherman.

[Tyco200]

@MrCSXboy98 Shermans were superior to T-34-85s. As we found in Korea, water stored ammunition saved the Shermans and helped them dramatically. The 76 was also superior and up to par to most German guns (75, 88s etc.) 

[Tyco200]

@MasonZairsoft Shermans armed with 76mm guns have knocked Panthers out at 1,200 meters. Sometimes, they even killed them 1,600 meters at times. Shermans were also easier to modify. T-34, on the other hands, was an engineering disaster. Horrible.. British Shermans were called Tommy cookers because they were literally armed with their ammo exposed and "Crammed wherever they could." HAHA!

[pattoncommander]

Last 90mm was used on the M-48A3. M-48A5 and M-60 carried the 105mm.

No Sherman carried a 90mm, only the M-36 series TDs on the M-4A3 chassis. IDF had both M-48A3 and A5s before they got the M-60s, They also used mofified Centurians, used alongside Shermans and M-48s. Then they developed their own amazing Merkava series. I used 90mm on M-26, 46, 47 and M-48A1/A2, and always regarded it as a very fine gun.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Yes, it was a fine gun, but compared with its soviet tank guns it was weaker. The soviets always had better tanks with superior firepower. The reason why that was, in my opinion, is because you never compared your tanks with their soviet counterparts and build your tanks according to what the soviets were developing. You were simply comparing your tanks with their predecessors, which is just stupid. You must compare your weapons with your enemy's, not with your own weapons.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 excuse please...I fought T-34/85s and SU-57s in Korea as well as facing Soviet T-54s to T-62s in Europe for too many years. Yes, the 85mm gun is/was a good gun and optics were fair in quality. The deciding factor was the better training of western forces as opposed to east Bloc. I am more that able to compare any tanks based on performance and capability, irrespective of the country of origin. East Bloc tactics disregard if the crew lives or dies. Soviet tanks are death traps.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, the T-34 was inferior to the M26 both in firepower and protection so of course you destroyed them. But when exactly did you face T54s and T-62s in combat if you don''t mind me asking? From what I know, there was never a war between the USSR and USA.

As for what you said, that the soviet tanks are "death traps", that is the typical myth that the western propaganda promotes. But the truth is the soviet tanks were always better protected and they had superior firepower.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Facing in the cold war is not firing..I served in M-46 in Korea, later 47, 48s. I have had many in my sights on the East German border, and me in thiers. Regarding Soviet tanks, the T-72 and T-80 are feared more by the crews than any enemy. Soviet tactics are and always have been totally ignorant of personnel. Take the objective but lose 19 out of 20, it's a success and tanks are replaced. No concern is given to crews. That has always been Russian tactics through out history.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, if you didn't face them in combat how do you know they were weaker? Not to mention that specs show otherwise. The fact is that the soviet tanks were always better protected and with superior firepower.

As for what you say about their tactics, that seems like western propaganda. What you say, that they preferred to lose 19 men out of 20 is the biggest bullshit I've ever seen. It shows you know nothing about the soviet tactics.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Well, it is very obvious tnat you have not done much research into Soviet tactics and are overly impressed by East bloc statistics. A larger gun does not make a better tank. Just read up on Iraq,  Afghanastan and Israeli conflits of the 60s and 70s, and you will see that overall Russian tanks have proven to be vastly inferrior to anything they fought. Yom Kippur war pitted outnumbered upgraded Shermans and Centurians against T-55-62s, and Russian tanks were totally outclassed.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, I;m not an expert in tanks. But to me, a tanks that has superior firepower, protection and mobility is a better tank. I know about the Israeli-Arab wars where the Israelis defeated the soviet tanks. I don't know how they did it. But my opinion is that because their crews were much better trained than the Arabs crews. And this is something you can't say about the soviet crews. They soviets trained their crews properly.

But I want to ask you something. Since you said you

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander served on the American M26 and Patton tanks, tell me , what was their protection? In mm.

As for what you said, that a larger gun doesn't make a better tank, that's incorrect. The soviet tank guns could (and still can) deliver a more powerful punch at longer ranges. And that's very important. A tank with superior firepower and protection run by a properly trained crew will always win.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 The M-26 and 46 had 100mm in the bow, sloped to give the effect of 150+mm, turret 120mm mantlet and 75mm sides. The T-34 showed the world about sloped armor, having only 50mm but with the 45 degree slope, gave it 80mm armor. The German Panther was based on the T-34, but the fact hidden from Hitler.

Regarding gun size, the Panther's 75mm with a 18 ft gun tube had better armor piercing power than the Tiger, wheras the Tiger could reach out farther with more explosive power.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, thanks for the info about the M26 and M46 tanks protection. And if you compare that with their soviet counterparts, you'll see that the soviet tanks were much better protected. Combine that with the superior firepower and I really don't understand how you could've stopped a soviet invasion in Europe. In specially if they decided to invade Europe in the '70s when they were the strongest and you were the weakest.

As for the Panther's gun, it was more powerful only than the

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Agree fully on the Pershing...not so on the M-36. Patton was at fault, wanting to stay with the vast numbers of Shermans, when we could have had the Tiger Tamer a year earlier. The M-36 was a TD, with 1 inch (25mm) armor and no machine guns.  The US tactics were based on accuracy since we would have had 10-1 ratio against us in Europe. Range finders on M-48s were important to get first round hit and they were marginally OK, as the guns on the T-54/55s then were not that good..

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, if the M36 was not that good, then the M26 should've definitely been adopted much sooner and in large numbers to face the Panthers and the Tigers. Patton was a fool if he opposed the introduction of heavy tanks as a response for the Tigers and Panther.

As for the M48 vs T-54/55, the M48 might have had better sighting system, but the T-54/55 had a much more powerful gun and it was also much better protected. Its gun could've pierced the M48's armor very easily, while the

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander M48 would've definitely had problems in defeating the T-54/55's armor.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander BTW, why don't you agree on the fact that more M36s should've been built. From what I've read, the soldiers were very pleased with them. The fact that they were lighter would've also given them an advantage. I think more M36s should've been built as well.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 The M-36 was good on firepower..same gun as the Pershing...however, all TDs had an open turret

no machine guns for anti personnel, other than cal 50 AA and only had 1 inch of armor. It was fast and maneuverable, but all it took was artillery with VT fuse to shred the inside of the topless turret. Plus many A-hole commanders used them for tanks, for which they had no machine guns or armor. Lot of TDs hated them for the open top where they were constantly in cold wind/snow/rain.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander The M36 has over 4 inch of armor in the front. So it was pretty well protected. The problem though was that opened top of the turret. Yeah, I've read about how the soldiers were complaining about being cold during the winter, but other than that, they were pretty please of this vehicle's performance.

BTW, what can you tell me about the M18 Hellcat tank-destroyer? I've read that in several occasions, it managed to knock out Panthers and even Tigers.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Incorrect; The M-36 had the same chassis as the M-10 Wolverine with 1 inch. The M-36B2 was an Sherman A3 chassis fitted with an M-36 Turret and included the only machine gun in the bow. A few of these were still being used in Bosnia recently....may still have some with some M-18s. That M-18 was the fastest tank in WW II getting up to 55 mph...90km. It had a 76 mm gun like the Sherman, BUT longer chamber and special hotter ammo. Panther, yes, Tiger, sides or turret, not bow.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, it's funny, 'cause wiki says the M36 has a 4.25 inch maximum armor thickness. It also says that M-36B2 was built on the M1A4 chassis. Well, it doesn't really matter, the point is that they should've adopted heavy tanks to deal with the German Tiger II and Panther. Letting the crews facing those tanks in the obsolete Shermans was a murder.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Tiger I's gun, not Tiger II's. The Tiger II's gun was the most powerful gun fielded on a tank during WW2. It was both longer and with a bigger bore diameter than the Panther's. Anyway, the Tiger II and the Panther should've prompted the introduction of more tank destroyers from the US army. In my opinion, The M26 should've been adopted much sooner and more M36 should've been built. They could've spared many US soldiers lives.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Both Tigers were bad news, The Tiger 1 (or E) was rough, but the Tiger II had the improved L-71 gun with longer range and bigger punch. The T-34 I mentioned was the 34/85. The 1940 T-34 had the 76.2mm on a 1939 design, but in late 43, the new turret and 85mm with an improved 5 piece transmission made it a formidable tank.  In Berlin, I was able to (VERY COVERTLY) speak with two Russian tankers at the war memorial, we spoke in broken German about our tanks. It was much too short.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Yeah, you're right. The T-34-85 had a 85 mm gun which was about as powerful as the 90 mm gun mounted on the M26 and M46. However, the American tank crews were better trained and that's why they won most of the confrontations in the Korean war.

As for what you talked with those Russian soldiers, what did they tell you about their tanks?

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 It was so nice talking with those guys. Wild swapping of uniform medals etc. We discussed the difference in tracks mainly ...US tracks require more maintenance but a track can be fixed and rolling in 20 minutes.T-34 tracks use the cables and can take up to 4 hrs to replace a damaged track , and if a rock gets in the tracks, it can bend the center guide and stops the tank....no problem on the double pin chevron track . Would have liked to chat over a beer, but back the then..no way.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander I didn't know that about the Russian tracks. I wonder how they managed during the Battle of the Kursk. So the American tracks needed more maintenance, but they were easier to repair. I guess that's an advantage.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 The basic US track is a double pin chevron..which has an end connector on the sides and a center guide in the middle. The end connector fits over the pins on the track and held by a wedge bolt which keeps the track block wanting to bend in, aiding in speed and maneuverability. The T-34 and most Russian armor uses a single pin...on the T-34 not held by nut/bolt, but kicked back in place by a metal wedge near the sprocket when the pin works loose 5-6 cms. Tracks are hard to work on.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, I;m guessing this was in those days. I figure that the current Russian tanks don't have this problem anymore. After all, they do have better mobility than the M1 Abrams. And I'm guessing that the next generation of tanks, like the T54/55/62/64 fixed this problem too. Or am I wrong?

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 The T-34/84 was a fine tank and the gun was as good as our 90mm, so about equal. You are correct on the training issue....Chinese were poor tankers in Korea and Israel's effectiveness was due to very fine training as opposed to Syrian or Egyptian counterparts. The "terrible Tiger" got it's reputation by being able to sit back 1000+meters and pick off undarmored Shermans who could not enagage at that range. Muzzle velocity in tank warfare is much better than a big blast.

[pattoncommander]

@pattoncommander the 90mm was an excellent, accurate gun, but the 76mm on my M-41 had better armor defeating power over my 90mm. Problem with Soviet tanks is the trend to use auto loaders which have been proven to jam. The T-72 and later are horribly cramped which makes it extremely taxing on the crews. Plus the ammo stowage at the turret ring causes the entire ammo to blow & toss the turret off when hit. I have driven T-34-55-64 and have been in several T-72s. Not a good design.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander How could the 76 mm gun have more penetration power than a 90 mm gun?

As for the soviet tanks, again, almost nothing that is rumored about their autoloaders is true. Only rumors. Those autoloaders are actually pretty reliable and they also reduce the size of the tank, making it smaller and harder to hit.

As for how the ammunition is stored, that may be a flaw in design, but ONLY IF the armor is pierced. Don't forget that that is the point where the armor is thicker so

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 The 76mm on the M-41 was a hyper velocity 76...it had a much higher muzzle velocity than the Sherman's 76mm and excellent AP performance. It's like the German Panther's 75 vs the tiger's 88. 90 had a a nice HE and decent AP, but the 76 would punch through easier. The auto loader has always been a problem. Many reports speaking with Iraqis revealed that the carosell on the T-72s was a constant problem. If you miss you cannot adjust, as the gun is raising to eject the spent brass.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander So the M-41's gun was longer than the 90 mm gun used on the M26 and the other Patton tanks? How could it achieve a higher muzzle velocity?

As for the autoloader on the Russian tanks, again, export models, like the Iraqis had, are not like the ones used by the Russians. Those are downgraded export models. Furthermore, they were operated by poorly trained crews.

As for what you say, that if you miss, you can't adjust because the gun has to eject the spent case, that's not a

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 The M-41 gun is not longer...its the chamber and ammo that makes the difference.

Like I just wrote on the M-18, the chamber was longer with more powder and higher pressure. Like the 38 cal pistol vs 357 magnum...same size bullet but shell is about 10 mm longer which makes a great difference in chamber pressure and MV. When a T-72 fires, the gun elevates to eject the spent shell and destroys your aiming point, so you cannot use a reference point for a second shot.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander The Russian tanks use two pieces ammo. Therefore there's no spent case to eject after firing. The ammo for the Russian tanks is made up from 2 parts, the propellant and the projectile. The propellant charge burns completely when the gun fires. So there's no case to eject after firing. Like I said, there are a lot of myths about the Russian tanks that are not true. These myths have appeared in part because of the export models' poor performances.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander problem with the Russian army. They use two parts ammo. I don't know what type of ammo the Iraqis used. But I do know that in the Gulf War, they used vastly inferior ammo to the ammo M1 Abrams used. That's why the Abrams had such a success in that campaign against the soviet tanks.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander penetrating it would've been very difficult for the American tank contemporary tank guns.

As for your impression on the soviet tanks, well, you were probably used with your own designs and that's why you didn't like them. I'm sure that's what a Russian tanker would think about the American tanks if he drove them. But this doesn't mean that the soviet tanks were worse designs. The fact that they had superior firepower, protection and mobility still remains.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Don't mean to imply I don't like Russian tanks. I had a ball driving a t-34/85 and a T-64, and i like the Christie suspension that the US stupidly rejected I spoke with many vets from iraq who all have had similar experiences. The Abrams 120mm and even the 25mm on the Bradley cut through Iraqi tanks like butter and nearly every one blew up and kicked the turret off. With the gun forward or over either front fender, the driver cannot exit if he's buttoned up. Burning tank is bad!

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Yeah, I know how the Abrams handled against the Iraqi tanks. But, again, those were downgraded export models. They had inferior armor, vastly inferior sighting systems, they used inferior ammunition with steel penetrators and half propellant charges. So just because the Abrams managed to penetrate the Iraqis tanks doesn't mean it would do it against the Russian models. In specially that the Russians also use ERA on their tanks, which vastly increases their protection.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander From what I know, the T-34 had a weaker, 76 mm gun so it was not as powerful as the 90 mm gun fielded on the M26 and M46 tanks.

As for how the Israelis defeated the Arabs, there were other factors, not just crew training. Their Pattons were modified and improved versions, whereas the Arabs were using downgraded soviet export models. The Israelis also had air superiority. They had advantages that NATO wouldn't have had in case a war in Europe would've started.

As for the muzzle

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander velocity of a gun, I know that is the most important when you're firing with AP projectiles. And the Tiger II's gun had the advantage here. That's why the Army Ground forces commanders shouldn't have been such morons and they should've given the go ahead for the introduction of more dedicated tanks destroyers and heavy tanks. Instead, they let the American soldiers face the Tiger II and the Panther in the obsolete Shermans which led to many unnecessary deaths.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Correct, The TD doctrine was based on late 1930s mass armor attacks, which Germany did not use after invasion of poland. It was an outmoded idea, but Germany had similar problems getting past older generals with backward ideas. Russia had more problems due to Stalin executing most of his experienced officers and NCOs. It's a messed up world. The Tiger II, L-71 gun was still 88mm but had a longer chamber and of course the longer gun tube. Tiger I had the AA gun tank modified .

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Yeah, and what's worse is that commanders with backward ideas still have the last thing to say in the US army.

Russia had problems with Stalin executing their most capable commanders, but they never had problems with hardware procurement, while the US army has this problem even to this day. For instance, I don't know why they adopted the Stryker. In my opinion, Stryker is just a waste of money. They should've used M113s instead. That would've been cheaper and M113 can do

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander everything a Stryker can and more. For instance, the M113 would never get stuck in the terrains the Stryker gets stuck. I saw some footage about this from Afghanistan and the soldiers are constantly complaining about the Stryker's lack of performance in Afghanistan's terrain, but the army is covering up these things. I don't understand why the commanders would want poor equipment for their army. Fact is this doesn't happen in the Russian or Chinese armies.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 I didn't like the Stryker at first, but the whole concept of battle has changed, and this is an issue of immediate transport to a combat area...whereas a tank unit would be slower to transport. From speaking with guys that have served on them, they have been working out fine, much faster on the road and so quiet, that no one knows they are there until someone is at thier door. M-113 has very poor armor protection...look at an Vietnam photos...no one is inside. Same problem as BMP.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, there are some military commanders that say Stryker isn't good. They say it's too heavy and too tall. As for the speed, like I said, the M113 is lighter, so it has just the same speed as the Stryker, if not greater. It is less protected than the Stryker, but there were modular armor packages designed for it. With those armor packages on, it would still be fast enough and much better protected. And, again, it would've cost less than developing a whole new vehicle.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Yeah, there are pros and cons either way, but working at a military museum,  I try to keep up on what's happening and speak with a lot of vets from the middle east. From what I hear, and see in photos, the stryker is gaining in popularity and it is definately much faster than the M-113 and lot quieter. The LAV-25 sucks and people hate them!!

Where do you live? Have you served with Soviet armor?

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, I guess the opinions differ on the Stryker. There are also soldiers that complain about its ineffectiveness in Afghanistan's terrain. And personally, I don't know what that 105 mm gun serves at. It's not good at bombing targets and it's also not good at penetrating modern armor.

I am from Romania. I did one year term in the Romanian army but I didn't serve on soviet armor. We don't have actual soviet armor anymore, we have an MBT based on the T62, I think. But I'm guy who

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Bine, bune sewa. My wife is from Arad and i have been all over Romania. I play a lot of Romanian Folk music..oboe, .tarogat, Cimpoi, and clarinets. I played oboe in Oradea Cath Church, and wanted to get back to Cluj and take lessons from Dumimtru Farcas on tarogat, but he's not doing well because he drinks too much. He teaches oboe at the music conservatory at Cluj. We have very good freinds in Timisoara, Cluj, Oradea and Bucaresti. I know the Romanian T-62, but never got close.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander :) Well, I'm glad that you like Romanian culture. How did you meet your Romanian wife, anyway? And how did you become to learn how to play Romanian musical instruments?

As for Dumitru Farcas and the fact that he drinks too much, well, that's a common trait among Romanian musicians :). Strange thing is that those who drink the most are also the best ones. :))

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 I am a professional oboist, primary English Horn, but I play all woodwinds. I love taragato. Picked up a couple nice (expensive) Romanian national costumes in Timisoara which I wear often when the weather isn't 42 grad. Check my Facebook...I sent you a couple messages from your Utube page.

Bill

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 Bune bune, I saw a tank park near Bucarest from the train to Timisoara but was warned about taking photos...The TR-77 is a good looking tank, but from what I hear from Romanians, it was junk with shot out guns from Russia. Romanians rebuilt it and made modifications to improve it. Be carefull what you read from Wiki..nothing is verified. The M-36 had the same chassis as the M-10. only the B2 had the M-4A3 chassis. M-1A4..no such animal. M-4A1 had molded hull but NOT on M-36.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, now the MBT in the Romanian army is the TR-85M1. It is based on the TR-77.

As for the mistake I made, I meant M4A4, not M1A4. And if the M36 was so poorly protected, then I guess the M26 was the only option the US army had against the Tigers and the Panthers. And the production on them should've started immediately after the Germans introduced the Tigers and the Panthers. When they saw their Panzers are obsolete, they immediately introduced new tanks to turn the balance in

[Tyco200]

@StiviGun1 Haha! Really? Did you ever hear of Shermans with 76mm guns? They killed Panthers at 1,600 meters (according to some archives) and also killed tigers at 800 meters. Also, 90% of all tank encounters were infantry encounters. Not tank. So, why would you need any new gun? Surprisingly, they should've changed the armor. Shermans were superior in the fact of mobility, and the fact that American-Anglo 76./76.5 (firefly) guns were deathly effective.

[StiviGun1]

I don't know when the Shermans equipped with the 76 mm gun destroyed Panthers and even Tigers. Maybe you can provide some proof for that. The reality was that every time the Sherman was encountering Panthers and Tigers, they had to sacrifice 4-5 Shermans before they could kill just one German tank. This wouldn't have happened if the T-20 tanks would've been adopted. Sherman was good for the 1st part of the war but the fact that it wasn't designed to fight tanks, made it unsuited for the most

[MrCSXboy98]

@StiviGun1 the 76.1 mm was used for mediums, etc.

the 76.2mm was the firefly.

[StiviGun1]

@MrCSXboy98 Yeah, but very few of these 76 mm guns were used on the Shermans. The same people that blocked the Sherman's replacement with more capable tanks, designed for tank warfare, also blocked the Shermans being armed with more powerful guns. The problem was that the people who were in positions to make the decisions on this matter couldn't understand what armored warfare was and what you have to do to win it. The Germans and the Russians did understand this but not America.

[MrCSXboy98]

@StiviGun1 the 76.2mm was mounted by the british, ignorant 1940's america wouldn't accept it. the highest mod. they made was 76.1mm. it could pare with the german IV, or the most common german tank of ww2. the sherman, was a decent medium-fighting tank. It had better maintenance then the panzer 4, and the t-34. it was cheaper to build and it can be fixed and sent back out within a week. On paper, its good. Shermans were NOT made to go after tigers. but the 76.2 made it able to.

[StiviGun1]

I know the Sherman was a good tank but only 4 the doctrine it was designed 4. It was easy to maintain & reliable. But it was not designed t2 fight other tanks. This led 2 too many unnecessary deaths among its crews when it was faced with the Panthers and the Tigers. The thing is people have 2 be open minded when it comes to procuring weapons. U must be able 2 look at what's new & whether that brings advantages or not. In this case, the T-20 tanks would've brought advantages over the Sherman.

[Tyco200]

@MrCSXboy98 You are a stupid pig. The Sherman with the M1 76mm gun outperformed the GF-17 pounder in HE, despite the fact that like all high-velocity tanks, it had a bad HE as well! The 76mm on the Sherman easily slaughtered Tigers and Panthers at 1,400 meters. GF-17 pounder modded Shermans failed miserably in numbers. Also, weren't the British those same idiots, who in the desert of 1942, failed to use our ammunition storage?

[MrCSXboy98]

@Tyco200 your a dumbass who doesnt know what hes talking about. the 76.1 mm could par with the german 75mm long barrel mounted onto the German IV. but, the 76.1 WAS NOT the firefly's 76.2 mm, which could penetrate the tiger. please, Get some knowledge. and the allies were new to war, so they had little sense to use each others guns, unlike today.

[StiviGun1]

@Tyco200 part of the war. It led to many deaths among crewmen, deaths that could've been avoided if they had replaced the Shermans with tanks that were suited for the armor warfare that was taking place in Europe.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander their favor. America should've done the exact same thing, not to send its soldiers to death.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander likes weapons so I read everything I can about any time of weapons systems.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1  Again, The M-113 wouldn't keep,up. The Strykers can cruise along at 55-60 mph, whereas M-113 would struggle to maintain 35, have access track wear and be a lot noisier. This is 8 wheels against tracks, so the wheels win in speed. If a track is hit, the M-113 is stuck..,..a Stryker can run with 3 wheels missing. Modules weigh any vehicle down and the cage on the Stryker is all they need.

[pattoncommander]

@pattoncommander tanks today are whole new ball game from those that I served. The Russian T-90 series look good, as does the new Japanese tank. Looks like they used T-80 and JS-III ideas, but seeing it in operation is impressive. The Abrams uses single piece ammo...lots easier and faster than seperate load and crew comletely safe from a hit. The Iraqis used the same Russian guns, so cannot see where they would use other ammo...it all came from Russia. Agree with export garbage.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Well, I know for a fact that the Russians use two piece ammo on their tanks. It seems like the Iraqis used different kind of ammo. The Russian guns can use all types of ammo.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander You underestimate the M113s. They can go much faster than just 35 mph. There were also new engines developed for them that would've given them an even greater speed. The truth is that there nothing the Stryker can do that the M113 can't. And since the M113 weighs about 12 tonnes, even with the armor package on it, it would still weigh less than the Stryker. You can also mount any type of weapons on them. So there's really nothing the Stryker can do and the M113 can't.

[pattoncommander]

@StiviGun1 I do not have to underestimate the M-113....i didn't read about them...i worked with them for over 20 years....after the M-75 and M-59, the 113 was a real gem.,fast, maneuverable, easy to maintain....and fun to drive. Top speed if you really pushed it, was about 40-42mph...no more, so in regards to speed alone, it can not equal the Stryker. I still don't like to thing and even if you don't agree, combat doctrine has changed and Stryker is more in line with modern requirements.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander Like I said, new engines were proposed for the M113. Many modifications could've been brought to the M113 and it would've still been cheaper than developing a totally new vehicle.

As for the combat doctrines, I don't know how they were changed, but those who changed them, clearly didn't do it accordingly to the reality. Like I said, the assumption that US will never have to face a major enemy is WRONG. And if the US loses its capability to fight with a major military power, then

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander it will soon be left vulnerable in front of Russia and China who are developing their capabilities as we speak.

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander And I don't agree with those that say the concept of battle has changed. Stryker was designed on a totally flawed principle in the 1st place. It was designed on the idea that no major conventional wars would ever be fought again and the US military will only fight in cities. Of course, that proved to be wrong. Russia is regaining its military power and China rapidly developing its military strength. The US will DEFINITELY need the capability to fight conventional wars in the

[StiviGun1]

@pattoncommander future. It has to maintain this capability if it wants to remain the dominant military power. And the truth is, in order to survive, it MUST maintain the military dominance in the world.

[pattoncommander]

Totally incorrect. Read up on IDF. The M-50 carried the CN-75-50 which was the French modified Panther's 75mm gun. The M-51 mounted the highly modified D-1504 L/44 105mm gun. The M-60 was the American M-60A1 called Magach in Israel. The only Sherman regarded as Super Sherman in Israel was the M-4 76mm. Any Sherman mounting the 75mm is an M-50, those with the 105mm, M-51, regardless of chassis .ie; A1 thru A4., Gen Kahalani turned over the last M-51 in 1978, none was ever called Super.

[SRNF]

@pattoncommander what happened to the 90 mm?

[pattoncommander]

Why does everyone in the USA put the tag Super Sherman to the M-51??. It was never regarded as such in Israel, the place where it earned it's awesome reputation.....the only IDF Super Sherman was the M-1....M-4A1/A3 76mm VVSS...the Mato version. This is just an M-51. Any Sherman with the modified turret and mounting the 105mm is M-51, irrespective of A1 or A3 chassis., Tanks mounting the French version of the Panther's 75mm were M-50s

[MrCSXboy98]

@pattoncommander The m50-m60 in Israel was like the british firefly (the 76.2mm 17-pounder AT gun)

the m50-m60 was also called, the super sherman, because its the 75mm sherman with a god damned big gun. Its like saying, No germany, if we say your panther is a heavy tank, its not a medium tank, its a heavy tank.

[SanderD171]

I realy don't know how it ended up in holland.

[lonespartan31289]

how did you end up with a super sherman in the Netherlands anyway? last i knew they were only in Israel

[megatwingo]

Interesting tank. Thanks for uploading and thumbs up! :)

[SanderD171]

In the Netherlands

[ThePanzerWarMachine]

@SanderD171

I diden't knew that there was a Supersherman in Holland?

[HunterR909]

What country is this taking place?