The american are douchebags and the worst kind, they saw the remaining of the German tank crew fled from the burning tank yet still put two more rounds to murder the defenseless, but you don't see the German tank crews did that to the Sherman tank crews, I surely hope these so-called WW2 american war heroes burn in hell for eternity, and I am so glad to see more and more american are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, you pigs desire it.
As mentioned a lot of cool and pathetic comments about the Sherman.
Sherman was built to be a Infantry Support tank, hence the HE round. Not to take on tanks at all, why is that so damned hard to understand? I N F A N T R Y SUPPORT. Not all round tank, not Tank Destroyer, a single purpose to support Infantry. Yes it was stupid to have the ammo unprotected in the turret , thats why the burned up. I suggest a visit to bovington tank museum for all you stupid fucks who think you know something.
The M26 was total improper for a landing.The M26 was much heavier then the sherman.The sherman was much more suitable this task because easier to operate,produce and carry.
And what if the germans had Tungsten?
They could produce more powerful armor pearcing shells and could destroy M26 tanks :D
@hitmen000 Basicaly Shermans were death traps. I bet 99% of the Sherman tank crew didn't care much about landing and would have prefered to put over 100mm of steel between them and the Germans.
@oOCrossroadsOo The M4 was one of the best medium tanks of the war, it had more armor and a better gun than the T-34, and outclassed or was the equal of all but the latest Pz4 models. Only the Panther was superior, a tank that would have been a heavy tank by allied classification. The Pershing was a heavy tank during the war, and although a fine vehicle,
@oOCrossroadsOo could not have been filled in the numbers of the M4, and would have left the allies without armor for weeks after the landing due to the difficulty in transporting heavy tanks across the channel.
@XxxSakura101 : There was no need to have 50,000 M26... And yeah the transport would have been a problem, perhaps. Yet it would have saved a lot of crewmen's life to drive an M26 throughout Europe instead of an M4
@oOCrossroadsOo Less tanks mean less ground held, and less attack power. M4s had been one of the best medium tanks of the war, retooling factories to manufacture M26's would mean at least 100 days of manufacturing nothing. Meanwhile the M4s replacement parts become rarer, as they are no longer standardised and the mainstream of production and supply issues would foam up.
@oOCrossroadsOo It's 200 Pershings a month vs 900 Shermans. Is the Pershing better tactically? Yes, but is it enough to offset the 4.5 vs 1 ratio? No. Is the Pershing better logistically? No, it could clog up already strained allied supply lines. The M4 was more suited to allied needs than the M26 was. The M26 would have been given to the more skilled allied crews, just as the Tiger was for the Germans.
@oOCrossroadsOo Wars are not won by sympathetic feelings for the crew, you do what you can but do not comparison effectiveness in protecting the individual. Would you put tank production on hold while factories spend months retooling and manufacturing replacement parts and M26s simply because it's a better tank? The M4 could get the job done, if it's not broke don't fix it.. Lives are important, but winning is more important.
@XxxSakura101 : The M4 could get the job done when it wasn't facing German armor. In this case, the only thing it could do was getting shredded into pieces of metal and/or burn. It was broken and American commanders were aware of it... Changing for the M26 wouldn't have caused the defeat of the Allies. They would have won nonetheless, with way less casualties for the Armored Divisions speaking of equipment and men.
It may look naive but I believe that when you send men into combat, the least you can do is provide them good equipment ensuring their safety while allowing them to be as efficient as possible. A lot of people consider the Sherman as good for the time, but I'm part of those who disagree. Remember it was called a death trap. Thinking that putting 5 young men inside a death trap isn't a good idea isn't sympathy, it's just logical.
@rifal004 yea but in reality tanks didnt realy start fighting until Dday +1 thats when we got the gas on the beach to send them out lol but yea it would have stoped alot of Tankmen casualties
@DEATHROW233 What if the allied commanders wherent so stupid? They could have 500 M26 pershings ready at the start of D-day and up to 3000 built and deployed by the start of the Battle of the bulge.
They Thought it would strechted the supply lines. It wouldnt. And many allied tank losses was the result
This has been flagged as spam show
The american are douchebags and the worst kind, they saw the remaining of the German tank crew fled from the burning tank yet still put two more rounds to murder the defenseless, but you don't see the German tank crews did that to the Sherman tank crews, I surely hope these so-called WW2 american war heroes burn in hell for eternity, and I am so glad to see more and more american are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, you pigs desire it.
1939Ironcross 4 months ago
lol at the guy just walking by while getting shot at. 0:20
briffyboy1 7 months ago
As mentioned a lot of cool and pathetic comments about the Sherman.
Sherman was built to be a Infantry Support tank, hence the HE round. Not to take on tanks at all, why is that so damned hard to understand? I N F A N T R Y SUPPORT. Not all round tank, not Tank Destroyer, a single purpose to support Infantry. Yes it was stupid to have the ammo unprotected in the turret , thats why the burned up. I suggest a visit to bovington tank museum for all you stupid fucks who think you know something.
9dissection9 10 months ago
The M26 was total improper for a landing.The M26 was much heavier then the sherman.The sherman was much more suitable this task because easier to operate,produce and carry.
And what if the germans had Tungsten?
They could produce more powerful armor pearcing shells and could destroy M26 tanks :D
hitmen000 1 year ago
@hitmen000 Basicaly Shermans were death traps. I bet 99% of the Sherman tank crew didn't care much about landing and would have prefered to put over 100mm of steel between them and the Germans.
oOCrossroadsOo 1 year ago
@oOCrossroadsOo The M4 was one of the best medium tanks of the war, it had more armor and a better gun than the T-34, and outclassed or was the equal of all but the latest Pz4 models. Only the Panther was superior, a tank that would have been a heavy tank by allied classification. The Pershing was a heavy tank during the war, and although a fine vehicle,
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@oOCrossroadsOo could not have been filled in the numbers of the M4, and would have left the allies without armor for weeks after the landing due to the difficulty in transporting heavy tanks across the channel.
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@XxxSakura101 : There was no need to have 50,000 M26... And yeah the transport would have been a problem, perhaps. Yet it would have saved a lot of crewmen's life to drive an M26 throughout Europe instead of an M4
oOCrossroadsOo 9 months ago
@oOCrossroadsOo Less tanks mean less ground held, and less attack power. M4s had been one of the best medium tanks of the war, retooling factories to manufacture M26's would mean at least 100 days of manufacturing nothing. Meanwhile the M4s replacement parts become rarer, as they are no longer standardised and the mainstream of production and supply issues would foam up.
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@oOCrossroadsOo It's 200 Pershings a month vs 900 Shermans. Is the Pershing better tactically? Yes, but is it enough to offset the 4.5 vs 1 ratio? No. Is the Pershing better logistically? No, it could clog up already strained allied supply lines. The M4 was more suited to allied needs than the M26 was. The M26 would have been given to the more skilled allied crews, just as the Tiger was for the Germans.
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@oOCrossroadsOo Wars are not won by sympathetic feelings for the crew, you do what you can but do not comparison effectiveness in protecting the individual. Would you put tank production on hold while factories spend months retooling and manufacturing replacement parts and M26s simply because it's a better tank? The M4 could get the job done, if it's not broke don't fix it.. Lives are important, but winning is more important.
XxxSakura101 9 months ago
@XxxSakura101 : The M4 could get the job done when it wasn't facing German armor. In this case, the only thing it could do was getting shredded into pieces of metal and/or burn. It was broken and American commanders were aware of it... Changing for the M26 wouldn't have caused the defeat of the Allies. They would have won nonetheless, with way less casualties for the Armored Divisions speaking of equipment and men.
oOCrossroadsOo 9 months ago
It may look naive but I believe that when you send men into combat, the least you can do is provide them good equipment ensuring their safety while allowing them to be as efficient as possible. A lot of people consider the Sherman as good for the time, but I'm part of those who disagree. Remember it was called a death trap. Thinking that putting 5 young men inside a death trap isn't a good idea isn't sympathy, it's just logical.
oOCrossroadsOo 9 months ago
@hitmen000 the 88 could kill a m-26 theres an account of a nashorn taking one out
BTpaintballer 10 months ago
germans must had terrible trauma when americans started brinning Pershing into fight also on eastern front when russian started making IS-2
and germans got nothing to left xD
NoobSnoopy 1 year ago
@NoobSnoopy
The IS-2 is ridiculous. What was the turret like some 120 mm? lol.
immortal117 1 year ago
Very good vid. Hey anyone know what show its from?
kiverson17 1 year ago
maybe humans?! are you maybe stupid?
MrDonnar 2 years ago
woo Pershing pwns not many know that just 1 pershing took on 4 tiger and 2 panzer IV and knocked out 2 tigers and 1 of the Panzers
DSMeclipsegst 2 years ago
Yeah, toobad they didn´t have it on D-Day
rifal004 2 years ago
@rifal004 yea but in reality tanks didnt realy start fighting until Dday +1 thats when we got the gas on the beach to send them out lol but yea it would have stoped alot of Tankmen casualties
DSMeclipsegst 2 years ago
yeah thats life.
what if germany had there tigers and king tigers at the begin of the war.
thats the same
DEATHROW233 2 years ago
@DEATHROW233 What if the allied commanders wherent so stupid? They could have 500 M26 pershings ready at the start of D-day and up to 3000 built and deployed by the start of the Battle of the bulge.
They Thought it would strechted the supply lines. It wouldnt. And many allied tank losses was the result
F4Wildcat 1 year ago