M4 Sherman

[aviationdocs]

Merci pour l'affichage. Veuillez visionner aussi les M4 Shermans dans ma vidéo Military and Flying Machines - On the Ground.

[haiherosner]

The Tigers and Panthers favorite snack is the M4 Sherman tank, yummy! Achtung Panzer!

[Varjensag]

Germany could not produce nearly as many tanks as the russians and americans and they needed a large technological advantage to compensate for their lack of numbers.

Even if they concentrated on making PzIVs they would still be overwhelmed.

[sardosfish]

in My city,in Italy we have 4 shermans and 1 amphibiam sherman model(fishing in naples gulf) now in perfect condition.one of this is used in "la vita è bella",an italian film.

check pianadelleorme.it for shermans,tiger and other 5000 ww2 military trucs,tank,cannons,bike ecc ecc

[omardx8]

China have too many people...but few soldiers

[azzythehero]

What people don't realize is that the Panzer IV was what the Shermans most often encountered in battle. The Pz IV was Germany's main battle tank, a role it inherited from the Pz III. It only had a 75mm gun like the early Sherman variants, and was never upgunned to carry heavier cannons (unlike the Sherman, which eventually got 76mm and 105mm cannons.) Only 1,347 Tiger I's were ever produced, compared to 8,800 Panzer IV's.

[Dreachon]

@azzythehero

Well although the calibre of the gun didn't increase it did increase in length.

[Nonamed22]

Can anyone explain to me why -if the germans were so fucking superior in every aspect - they lost WW2?

[0022acc]

@Nonamed22 because by the end of the war they were outnumbered 10 to 1

[pioneerW2k]

@Nonamed22 only for the quantity and not for the quality!!!

[Nonamed22]

@pioneerW2k See? And that`s the problem. In the end they lost. no matter how.

Who cares they were outnumbered? If and only if they were so excessivly superior that would not have mattered. it just proves that superior technology is one piece of the picture. but it is not everything.

[pioneerW2k]

@Nonamed22 Try to image a new war USA vs CHINA ok?who win? im sure win the china at 100%,only for the number not for the quality....is the same thing....and if the sherman was called RONSON(the lighter)in war there is a reason:O

[justinjacques766]

if the sherman is the worst tank, then why did ALL the allied countries use it hmm?!

[Halo30wnag3]

@justinjacques766

cause the m4 sherman is 10x cheaper than for instance the leopard or something!

a real king tiger could destroy 20 m4 shermans if he want! :D

[HOLYDSFA]

@Halo30wnag3 yup.. so Americans zerg rushed the shit out of germans =[

[Halo30wnag3]

@HOLYDSFA

^^ lol...

[wartmcbeighn]

@justinjacques766

because they could be mass produced, and were reliable..thats the reason, not for any reason like they were outstanding tanks

[MultiWarfighter]

Prone to setting alight when hit becasue it ran on petrol and not diesel, but fast and deadly and effective when mass produced, arguably one of the best tanks to be produced during the war because of how cheap it was to produce and how effective it was in battle - if tigers were easy to produce it would get the gold but they were hard to produce becasue they cost alot of resources which let the germans down.

[caswalp]

@MultiWarfighter Actually the only diesel tank produced in numbers was the T-34. All British and German tanks were petrol. It is a myth that is was because the sherman was petrol that they blew up.

Shermans originally had spare ammo stored in the Hull over the top of the track along the sides. The ammo of cause would go off when the sherman was hit. Later Shermans had wet storage the ammo was stored low in the tank, along the floor, surrounded by water jackets. This helped to fix the issue

[scottduncan44]

@caswalp The early war British Matilda's were diesel and so where the majority of the Valentines (over 6,000 produced) using GMC diesals. The M4A2 (8053)and M4A6 were diesel engined.A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun.

[bbcc2200]

I like Sherman M4 very much and I have several plastic models of them.

[MadMilitiaMen]

Just like the T-34 the sherman was a reliable tank that could be built in large numbers. The Sherman strength was that it could do almost anything and do it decently

[DumbYankies]

@MadMilitiaMen amen. Build 1 tank, build it in the 10s of thousands. Base everything off it. The panther and tiger were a recipe for disaster. Too complex and too few. Most armour in ww2 was actually killed by artillery not ATG's, airstrikes or other tanks. An artillery round will kill a tiger as well as it will kill a sherman. Most tanks only have 10 to 20mm of armour on the back deck.

[karankenZ]

@lordstanworth

And the sherman was like a lego tank, lol. U could attach AC cannons good vs tanks, .50 machine guns and smoke screen bombs, along with the pershing upgrades, Mobility was more important for tanks in WW2 to survive AT guns and also flank enemy tanks for their weak armored regions and the Sherman and m10 tank destroyers excelled at that.

[xAlexTobiasxB]

@karankenZ "Mobility was more important to survive AT guns" Since when does mobility protect a weak armored tank against AT guns? Maybe in your fantasy mind? Only tanks with good armor protected had the best survival chances on the battlefield. During Battle of Kursk, the Tiger could survived many direct hits and could take lots of punishment without getting destroyed. That's why there were many Tiger aces with over 100 tank kills, because they could surive the longest and get the most kills.

[karankenZ]

@xAlexTobiasxB AT guns were long ranged and slow at turning around, shermans and M10s used to flank them. Just like u said that tiger tanks frontal armor used to protect them, shermans and m10's used to flank them so they can take hits to their back armor or side armor. A lot of shermans perished trying to do this but eventually one or two would make it behind and hit them where it hurt.

[xAlexTobiasxB]

@karankenZ Another example, the King Tiger's sloepd front glacis was NEVER penetarted in ww2 during comabt. Only the turretfront is known to be penetrated only once in actual combat, but in all other cases shells just bonced off the armor. the Sherman was mostly destroyed when it got hit. They were a one hit - one kill matter. They couldn't resist high 75mm or 88mm guns because of the very thin paper armor. mobility was only good in combination with other tanks for outflanking.

[Scoutrussp7]

Sherman is the worst tank ever made

[Smersh87]

Sherman is a good medium tank like T-34-76 and Pz IV ausf G.

[mezlay2]

talk english! its an american tank!!

[dasnorwin]

Tiger kicks ass

[eba2294]

gotta love this tank

[Kingraptor31]

Do your research,i was pointing out some good things about the sherman too,ask any know-it-all about the M4 Sherman,they will tell you it wans't designed for tank-on-tank combat,Tank destroyers were designed to do that

[Kingraptor31]

For people who thinks the sherman is crap,open up your mind,some retards compared the Panther and the Tiger to the Sherman,the sherman was a INFRANTRY SUPPORT TANK! it wans't meant to fight against other tanks,yet it could do good against Panzer III and Panzer IVs And Some Assault guns which where the most produced in the german arsenal oh yea dont forget about the the Isreali Super sherman and the Jumbo sherman,Sherman crews even have the guts to face Tigers and Panthers

[xAlexTobiasxB]

@Kingraptor31 shut up the Sherman was designed to counter also tanks. in the early years it was even superior to most tanks in the world that were used by other countries. the Shermanw as also superior to the Panzer III and still matched with the Panzer IV. To say it was only designed to fight against infafntry is BULLSHIT and you are spreading this BULLSHIT open YOUR OWN eyes beore talking dumb crap.

[karankenZ]

@xAlexTobiasxB He is right, the sherman was mostly infantry support, but it did match the panzer IV after AC cannon upgrades and due to its mobility, so infact both of u are right. but it is a fact that infantry rangers, 57 mm AT guns and M10 tank destroyers killed more tanks than the sherman.

[tstravist]

Most here I am sure know that having good/better/best equipment is only one aspect of a war effort. If having the technically better equipment was all that practically mattered then, to name a few, Nazis would have won WWII, the US Vietnam and Soviets the Afghanistan war. They lost. By 1945 you wouldn't want to be a Tiger tank facing a Sherman, you'd want to be home having kissed good bye an apocalyptic war driven to its horrifying conclusion by mad leaders. Cormrad German soldiers dead: 1 in 4

[calimar28]

Jumbo Sherman. Enough said

[stopkillingwolves]

good video

[HeXaNoL]

Americans have no honor :D

Glory Germans!!!

[MokomaSusi]

So, how come germans have "honor" but americans dont?

[4everUSNavy]

dude, if you think we dont have honor than you are one of the most dumbest person ever put on this earth.

the germans didnt show honor. from what my pappy said, the germans ran their ass off.

[ThePanzerWarMachine]

We Germans actually were favored above the Russians 'cause we actually had Medics and treaded POWs with respect

it was the Russians who dident cared about a mans life. They dident had a Doctor with them when thaey assualted.

Never Heared of Stralins'Great attack'?

Only victory counts. wounded or dead, dont.

[tstravist]

The Gemans treated the American and British POWs relatively well and vice-versa. The German and Russians treated each others POWs with no recognition of humanity. Nazis ideology considered USSR's 'Slavic People' as Untermensch or 'racially inferior people', basically sub-human. Armed with this ideology the SS in particular committed unimaginable atrocity in the advance across the USSR. Nazi Atrocity begot Soviet atrocity and it was a living hell to be a civilian or POW between these two sides.

[TheEldoradoKid]

I don't know how well the Brit and American POWs had it if the concentration death camps were any indication, but I do know that German POWs had a fairly good existence in American POW camps stateside. They ate well, had rec-rooms, could listen to music, relax, read books, and were often on work release to help on farms, do road work, etc. In fact, after the war, many German POWs were released and decided to try and stay to make a go of it in the US. There were / are a lot of Germans in the US.

[BlueBig22]

@MokomaSusi because america bombed the crap out of them

[maxTHEKILLEROFCSS]

fuck u fuckin boch

[vivele77]

Germans have no honor...French (me) and Americans are honor, Panzer and Tigre are shit...

[Znitso]

Eh? Tigers own. The tiger are way better then the sherman.

[CoreMaster111]

XD HA HA HA if you would be with sherman against panther or tiger then you problably would shit in your pants.

[vivele77]

Maybe but me I would be in a french Leclerc, not a Sherman... :)

[CoreMaster111]

you cant compare wwii tanks and modern tanks...

[pioneerW2k]

@CoreMaster111 ahahahah sherman=RONSON clic clic boooomXD this isnt a tank:O

[CoreMaster111]

@pioneerW2k LOL thats true. Ronson... lights first time, everytime.

[jakey130486]

panzer crews refered to the sherman as easy prey. 5 russians were more dangerous than 30 americans. tiger great otto carius said he once run out of armour piercing rounds and fired HE shot at shermans and that was enough to make them bail out and abandone a perfectly good tank. the american government ignored requests for a better tank and chose to mass produce the sherman subsequently sentencing thousands of brave men to death...arseholes

[ThePanzerWarMachine]

@jakey130486

You are Correct there. Sherman Tanks were cappeble of Being knocked out by infantry shells. the HUGE inpact from the shell country seriiously damge the sherman.

[scottduncan44]

And despite all the crap of how great the German panzer's were they were destroyed and lost the war. The tigers broke down and the most effective units the Stugs and PZ 4's did not work well without fuel or ammunition. Hitler never had sufficent stratigic intelligence to focus on the Mediteranium and the oioil fields before invading the USSR.

[SplusEgamecritics]

@scottduncan44 that and the reason the shermans prevailed over the tiger and panzer is qaunity. the shermans were mass produced- cheap to make and using little supplies- as for the tiger it was expensive to make, and it took up alot of supplies to make.

[jakey130486]

im so sick of seeing all these stats about how great the sherman is from you people. the simple fact is that the american government admitted it was shit and so do the men that served in them. by 1944 it was disclosed the US had lost 1,400 tanks completely destroyed of which 90% had burned out (tommy cookers) the sherman was "officially" described as a death trap the arrival of the pershing was "too little too late".

[scottduncan44]

There were seceral factors in the lack of development of the M-26 and more advanced Shermans.One was the shortage of shipping. All Shermans had to be transported by sea. An M-26 took up the space of two Shermans. A second was a failure to realize the need for more powerful antitank guns, The Americans did finnaly order 100 firefly conversions but it was too late in the war. The 76 mmM4A3E8 was a significantly better at anti combat tank than earlier 75 mm M-4 models but had a weaker HE shell.

[scottduncan44]

The M-10 armed with the 3" and later 76.2 mm gun and later M-36 with the 90 mm gun were variants of the Sherman and particularly the M-37 could blow a hole through any German tank. The flaw was not in the Sherman but in the bureaucratic infighting between the ordnance dept and the armored force. The M-36 and later Israli modifications to so called "obsolete" Shermans showed that it could have been up gunned and up armored if the Army had not tolorated the infighting.

[9394JP731]

The 75mm M4 was inferior to the T34/76, It was easily destroyed by the 50mm gun Pz III, not applied to the T34/76! But the M4 new 76mm gun was superior to the T34's 85mm gun, 135mm vs 100mm @ 1000m!  Which was better, the easy 8 or T34/85?

[ftjax]

Sherman tank was a "ronson lighter"....too

small, too light, too flimsy, too easy to blow up.....the best thing it was used for:

put a blade on the front & push dirt around like a cat dozier..

[fuckmyassgirl]

Sherman the tommy cooker,thats funny

the american tank crew were also very brave even knowing that they were sending a steel coffin to fight modern german warfare,no wonder why they were told to not fight tank against tank in battle,or why they were called the tommy cookers,have you seen the little tank insignia in the right sleeve on german uniforms?some have 3 or 5,it means they destroyed 1 enemy tank with hand guns,land mines,hand grenades,magnetic grenades,panzerfausts

[rocketshipstud2]

m4a3e8 sherman did very well against t-34/85 into north korea 1950!-milwaukee

[EvilFingers]

What a Piece of Junk, cant even withstand a direct hit from 75mm PAK 40 Anti-Tank Gun, especialy the World's Deadliest AT Gun of the time, the Mighty 88mm, which turned the Sherman into a Steel Coffin for its brave crew of 4.

I say Brave because the crew were told that the Sherman was the Best Tank and can withstand a direct hit from any AT Gun, but the crews were never told that the Germans had the Best AT Guns that can knock a tank from a distance of more than half a mile...the Mighty 88mm.

[morbidfrost]

Pak40s where awesome

[181jose]

Scrap metal !

[YamaniNetsi]

The problem was never with Sherman tank. Sherman was a decent tank, even USSR used Sherman's widely until the end of the war. Comparing Sherman to a Tiger or a Panther is idiotic. Why compare Heavy Tank and Medium tank? While at it, why not compare T70 to Tiger? Yes, Sherman was not extremely well designed medium tank, but it got the job done. Whose ass got owned, at the end? Israel used modified Sherman's against Centurions and T55 in 1967.

[panzermarche]

You would do lot of comparison if you had to fight in one, and ran into a panther

[YamaniNetsi]

Before running into Panther I would probably run into dug-in German AT gun or infantry. Same for the Germans. Tanks were not the biggest killers of other tanks - it was AT artillery. The kicker is that with a platoon of Shermans, I had a much better chance of spotting these AT weapons. It is not for nothing that Germans lost the war. WWII wasn't a competition whose dick is the biggest.

[181jose]

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU talking about you fucking child USSR never use shermans NEVE!!!!!! READ MY LIPS NEVER !!!! Dont make the us that wont the war it was the soviet union you idiot They liberated europe and sherman in that time was the FUCKING PEACE OF JUNK SCRAP METAL !!!! JUNK JUNK JUNK JUNK !!!!!!!!!!!! trash idk how to call it Thin armor small gun it was a childs toy as every other us weapon or tank!

[YamaniNetsi]

jose, STFU, you stupid ignorant imbecile. Grab a book and learn a little bit. Perhaps you'll find out about USSR use of Shermans, Valentines, Grants, Cobras, Hurricanes, Studebakers, Jeeps, etc. US lost fewer Shermans per German tank than USSR lost T34s per one German tank.

[scottduncan44]

Here Jose too bad your not bright enough to do a searcch or be polite.[edit] USSR

The Soviet Union's nickname for the M4 medium tank was Emcha because the open-topped figure 4 resembled the Cyrillic letter che or cha (Ч ).

A total of 4,102 M4A2 medium tanks were sent to the U.S.S.R. under Lend-Lease. Of these 2,007 were equipped with the 75 mm gun, and 2,095 carried the 76 mm gun.

[MokomaSusi]

"USSR never use shermans NEVE!"

Yes they did. There is lot of pictures to prove that and soviet tankers actually liked sherman more than they did T-34.

Late war Shermans 76mm HV cannon was better than T-34 85mm.

[TheCommissar15]

hahaha look whose ass was getting kicked intill the U.S. and Britain invaded France. And as for winning the war, the Allies LET you take Berlin. Stalin knew that his armed forces couldent beat back the germans, so he repeatedly asked the allies to invade from the west to relieve some of the pressure off of his country. You did however use the Stuart Tank, which had a 37mm gun lol. Which was given to the ussr. Also, the Sherman was an INFANTRY TANK. Not designed to attack other tanks.

[JBBlitz]

Shermans were shitty terrible tanks im sorry, this shows that the Soveit Union won the war not US.

[MokomaSusi]

If they were bad why soviet troops who used them liked Sherman? Soviet union also used lot of american equipment and without US trucks (about 2/3 soviet trucks were american) they would be still walking towards Germany.

[JBBlitz]

they never used Shermans they could mass produce a better tank called the T-34, and USSR hated USA they would not take equipment from USA, Stalin hated and did not need the USA.

[Stonewalljackson7]

Russia received a lot of aid from U.S.

[JBBlitz]

Russia took no aid they Hated Capitalists

[Stonewalljackson7]

Stalin might have hated the U.S. but he wasn't stupid.He desperately needed the aid.

[Stonewalljackson7]

Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks: The World War II Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza (Hardcover)

Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitriy Loza has carefully crafted his World War II experiences with American-provided Sherman tanks into a highly readable memoir. Between the fall of 1943 and August 1945, Loza fought in the Ukraine, Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Austria. He commanded a tank battalion during much of this period and had three Shermans shot out from under him.

[Stonewalljackson7]

and

P-39 in Soviet Use

by James Gebhardt

Over half of the Airacobras produced, almost 5000 planes, went to the Soviet Union. The first P-39s to reach Soviet hands were delivered from Britain, who had rejected the aircraft after it failed RAF flight testing in late 1941. After accelerated ground and flight testing the Soviet government agreed to delivery of large numbers of Airacobras through the Lend-Lease program. Between 1942 and 1944, Soviet ferry pilots flew approximately 2,600 P-39s

[Stonewalljackson7]

Pwned

[25poul1258]

Are you stupid? if the Americans didnt gave the Ussr allot of tanks and planes then the Germans had for sure won in Russia. Russia did move all their factories longer east all the time so the Germans didnt captured them and used them to build tanks or planes to attack the Russian even more..

[JBBlitz]

you are, Russia already had better tanks than USA offered, Russia defeated Germany due to their own tanks planes and own technolgy, a sherman could not even hurt a panzer, t-34 IS-2 and KV tanks were better than american tanks. TU-95 was better than any american aircraft at the time.

[TheCommissar15]

If Stalin did not need the U.S. , he wouldent have asked the U.S. and Britain to invade Europe to ease the pressure off his country. Also, if you did your homework, you'd know that the Sherman wasnt made for tank to tank engagements, but as an infantry support role. But if you compare the two, the Sherman had 82mm armor and a 76.2mm cannon. Where the T-34 had 52mm armor along with a 76.2mm cannon. The U.S. gave Russia a MASSIVE amount of supplies, guns, tanks, munitions, ships, and planes!!!!!!

[TheCommissar15]

Most Shermans were armed with a 75mm gun at the start of the war, but alot were upgraded with the M1A1C 76.2mm cannon or the british 17 pounder gun, which were the same in the sense of fire power. T-34s also suffered more problems than the Sherman in terms of equipment. Most lacked radios, and the turretscan only hold two people in them, forcing the tank commander to be the mounted gun opperator.

[JBBlitz]

Stalin never asked, the us gave stuff so they would not have to get in the war, you are talking about the t-34/76 not the t-34/85 has 90mm armor and 85mm gun which could destroy up to tiger 1 tanks. planes Russia had the TU-95 better than any plane at that time, Russia had sub machine guns, Russia had better tanks too, and also Russia had more mines and metal deposits than USA as well as oil, Russia had more resources than anyone during the war.

[TheCommissar15]

Why are you including the TU-95? That plane was introduced in 1956, about 10 years AFTER world war two. And that think has propeller engines, so theres noway it can match the top speed of an American B-52 Bomber.

[JBBlitz]

no that was plane was made in 1942. and the plane carried more of a payload than the B-52 and flew faster and hit long range vs that short range bomber you mentioned.

[TheCommissar15]

Ok, now i know your just shoving crap out your ass. The TU-95 was built in response to the american B-52, because they wanted a bomber that can deliver nukes just like the B-52, they even created a version that can be catapulted off the deck of a carrier. So if the B-52 put into service in 1955 and the TU-95 was built in response to the B-52, then theres no way it could have been built in 1942. Also, theres a reason they made turbine engines, to go faster then propeller engines. Nice try.

[FutureMarine246]

are you kidding? the b-52 has a much larger payload and flew faster

[FutureMarine246]

umm the ussr did take american equipement just look at the russian p-40 squadrons

[JBBlitz]

maybe during the cold war to test American strength.

[psu4ever12]

jbblitz you know absolutely nothing about history

[JBBlitz]

another stupid youtube troll what else is new.

[psu4ever12]

wow your just trying to start something arent you? fucking pathetic...whatever im not gonna spend time fighting on the internet with a complete stranger

[JBBlitz]

then you should not have said anything dumbass

[crescentcityarts]

shermans needed to outnumber panzers at least two to one to have a chance. my grandfather was a driver for m3s and m4s. the german tanks were in another league. sorry - thats just how it was.

[Reastnhias]

At militarymuseumvol:

Shermans don't take out Tigers easily.

Because Tigers had a 50mm strong armor and a sherman M4 A1 only a 15mm armor, and the Tiger had a bigger cannon than the herman so the sherman tank crew had to strain then the sherman can take ot the Tiger.

I've forgoten One Thing i like Shermans and i think that they are the best tanks at WW2

[Cosmin1511]

On average 6 shermans were required to take out a Tiger . The Tiger had 110mm maximum armour and its 88 mm L56 gun could easylly destroy the sherman at over 2000 m . The only Sherman that could engage the Tiger at combat ranges was the Firefly . But the firefly stood out in the battlefield couse of its long barrel and was easylly a Pazer commanders first target . The Sherman was outclassed even in 1940 ... it was just the best the allies had .

[iroscoe]

The Sherman didn't exist in 1940 but if it had of it would of outclassed the best German tank of the time the Panzer IV with its short 75mm,the Sherman performed well in North Africa during 42/43 when it was faced with comparable German and Italian medium tanks .

[181jose]

Yes they were peace of junk in ww2 scrap metal no way Sherman could beat the T34!

[Cosmin1511]

Well....the FireFly could beat the T34 :)

[scottduncan44]

The Sherman had many advantages over the T-34. It had better optics and communication and was more reliable. T-34's were notorious for transmission failure. T-34's often had poorly trained crews and early models lacked radio's. The Tank commander/gunner needed to open up the turret and wave flags to communicate. Despite its excellent qualities the T-34 was not a perfect design. The Shermans greayest weakness was a failure of armored doctrine which called for tank destroyers to fight tanks.

[scottduncan44]

Your numbers are wrong for both tanks. This information is readily available on line. fior example the late model M4A3E8 specs are (from Wikipedia)

Hull Thickness

Front, upper 2.5 inches 47 degrees

Front, lower 4.25 to 2.0 inches 0 to 56 degrees Sides 1.5 inches Rear 1.5 inches 10 to 22 degrees

Top 0.75 inches Floor, front 1.0 inches

Turret Thickness Gun shield 3.5 inches Front 2.5 inches 40 to 45 degrees

Sides 2.5 inches

Rear 2.5 inches

Top 1.0 inches

[militarymuseumvol]

shermans could easily take out tigers and panthers. as long as you had a smart crew and not a crew that just didnt know what to do.

[mihaelmartinovic]

It still depens I would prefer 2 shermans to knock out a Tiger! You dont know! Well it could happend if the Sherman suddenly ends up in the rear of the Tiger but they need to hit the Big canisters in the rear to knock him out!! That was clever!

[AirDB23]

easily? I don´t think so

germans were a very well trained crew

[ck002]

shermans had to be within 200 yards of the rear of a tiger or a panther to get a chance of a kill.

German tank crew training and tactics were better.

Its more down to bravery and guts if the sherman crew wanted to try getting that close or more often pull back and call in figer bombers

[militarymuseumvol]

you forgot brains. it isnt just guts, its brains too. if the tiger or panther was dug in and the sherman was unable to get a shot off, thay'd call in air support. if the german tank was in the open, or they could get a shot off, they would try if they knew they could

[ck002]

Shit. My bad. i misread. Removed my previous comment

Granted i agree on your points on the early panther and Tiger. But thats not what the argument is.

Im saying that the crews knew where to hit the things. But the oppertunity rarely came up where the german tanks came without support..

But your right in the end, mostly it came to keeping a level head and acting without loosing your mind and running.

[militarymuseumvol]

sorry i blew up. i was stressed out.

[timudema]

i sow this tank in normandie

[tazelator]

tokayev.... you talk about germans destroying cities? well, we started bombing cities, but the allies bombed many more cities than the germans...

[tstravist]

Its true the allies carried out more saturation bombing of cities. Bear in mind on this matter that these bombings were evaluated after the war to have had little to no measurable strategic value and has sucked away massive resources. These razing of civilian populations was a technical AND moral war crime, nothing to be proud of.

[blacksherman45]

the sherman owns but then it get pwned by the tiger tank still it owns

[Littlepetslinki]

even if the sherman was a bad tank, the germans had no hope in the way of numbers.

and then, if a firefly was presetn, there would be no germans around ;)

[F4Wildcat]

It took an average loss of 5 shermans for one German Tiger tank.While the allies won the war defiantly with number, Sherman tanks where bad tanks.They where Shot to pieces.The 7.5CM gun of the panther and the 88MM of the gun of the tiger ripped apart shermans from all ranges, while the Sherman couldnt penetrate the Tiger and panther frontal armor

[WoWsuckes]

...During world war two, m4-shermans destroyed targets by piling much larger foes. the German panzer tank let alone the massive tiger tank could not withstand the damage ten shermans dealt upon it. We won by weight of numbers.

ftw

[ffej980]

The French Army In World War 2...1 million rifles for sale...never fired dropped once...

[freiherrudet]

American masses won over German technical quality.

[tokayev]

Yes, as destruction of cities, killing of civilians, SS, holocaust, etc. Thanks, I don't like this "quality"

[RepublicAgent]

What are you talking about?

[slopedarmor]

with quality he means things like the Tiger tank vs 10 sherman tanks.

Than I'd rather be in a tiger tank.

Also the ME262 v2 etc etc

[fbhn]

Wow, the Ronson lighter in action.

[BOROCKHARDJR]

FUCK YOU!!!!! LITE YO ASS UP!!!