Nice video. I was, however, quite relieved to hear the music finally stop, only to be discouraged when it started again. Some of us simply want to hear these beautiful machines, and nothing more.
Most people don't realize, this thing was the fastest armored vehicle going. Almost no one knows or realizes most of these things were equipped with radial aircraft engines. You only needed one sharp country boy that knew how to twiddle a few nuts and bolts and this thing was the rocket you see in this video. This left enemy tanks in the dust. Yea it took four of these to take out a tiger but the in the meantime you only had 2700 tiger ones and twos compared to 55 thousand Sherman's.
Germans used to call Shermans "Tommy Cookers" to describe how fast they blew up when hit. Even Sherman crews called them "Rhonson Lighters". There was a radio commercial about Rhonson cigarette lighters back then that went "Rhonson Lighters: One strike lights it up every time"
The American tactical philosophy was significantly different than the Germans. They wanted LOTS of small, fast tanks to support advancing infantry – not to engage in slug fests with other tanks. The best way to kill a tank is with an airplane. In the end, I'd say the American concepts worked.
@TheTruepatriot1776 Even in slug fests, Shermans did well when armed with the 76. Against Panzer Ausf. Hs, it only took at Sherman at 800 meters to get a direct shot to end the fight.
Correct, My grandfather was in an armored recon unit. Their standard orders were to engage German tanks only long enough to fix their position for an airstrike, no head to head slugfests.
Loved how they blew through the STOP sign at speed...I mean, who's gonna argue with a frickin' SHERMAN TANK, fer f*cks sake! Reminds me of a line from that old Humphrey Bogart film "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- "Stop Sign?....we don' need no steenking STOP SIGNS !!!"
Funny thing about Shermans. They didn't have a high silhouette, they had a narrow silhouette. The tank was as tall as a Panzer IV, yet much narrower. Because the proportions are off, it makes the Sherman look much taller than it really is. So when compared to most contemporary tanks, the Sherman was actually a harder target to hit due to being so narrow.
with this speed he could be back in america in 2days and tell them that they should produce some better tanks, because all his friends already got penetrate by the germans.. (btw.. if you already use this kinda music with the sherman.. what will it be if you will film a tiger.. deathmetal?!)
To put all arguments to rest it is true German tanks were of better quallity, but only for a short time. By the time a German Panther or Tiger got two days of battle service in, they usually needed five or six days of repair. So they had a shock value, but were to over engineered for Germany to hanndle at the time. Whilest the American Shermans, were yes notorisously Tommy Cooker. They were very effective due to the shear numbers of them, just as the Germans were due to the gun and armor.
I think many people are unaware that the US decided to build large numbers of smaller, less armored tanks for the simple reason they had to be transported across the Atlantic Ocean. Say what you want about how great German tanks were, the Shermans did their job, they helped win the war.
@clintonearlwalker and they were easy to mass produce - sure it took 3 or 4 or even 5 shermans to knock out a tiger, but when they out number 20 to 1, no prob
Dear god im tired of people saying this.. You dont compare 1 single tank to another specially when you wanna talk about mass numbers... The americans by the end of the war if you count all the relavent tanks built like the wolverine and slugger and M4 and the varients that saw combat.. They produced about 40k tanks.
The germans if you count the stug3 up and the panzer 4 up they build around 30k tanks... Care to clarify that 20:1 ratio again ?
@clintonearlwalker Exactly. Most people are also unaware of just how effective Shermans were as medium tanks. In the deserts of Africa, only the 88 could kill a Sherman. Pz IIIs and IVs both made easy targets for the M3-75mm gun, which had an AP of about 60+mms at that time. Pz IV f.2 was the only tank capable, besides the heavier, super uber German machines that were invincible to everything, that could take on a Sherman.
@clintonearlwalker It would also be nice to note the E8. Shermans armed with the 76 could engage Tigers at a total distance of 1,000 meters with standard AP. Panthers, on the other hand, had superior armor. This, however, was quickly overcome with HVAP, which records hits as long at 1,600 meters with the M1-76mm on the glacis plate.
@clintonearlwalker Another thing we should remember is the armor rumor. The 51mms of slopping armor gave the Sherman about 192mms of frontal armor, if it were "not slopped." The T-34, on the other hand, due to inferior quality/thickness only got about 92-98mms total. The Sherman's 75mm could take on 60mms + at 1,000 meters. The 76.2 could only do the same at 600 meters, making it entirely useless against the KwK L-40 75mm. Sherman also had large crew spaces and ammo storage, T-34 lacked both.
@Tyco200 Make no mistake, I was at a tank museum in Aberdeen Maryland, they had an example of nearly every tank sitting in field. The German "Panther" tank appeared to be the meanest on the lot. A Sherman looked like a beer can in comparison. The Panther had large scoops of armor blown away from what looked like an ice cream scoop about 5 inches deep. The Sherman was inferior in many ways, but quantity has a quality all it's own.
@t110d93 The relatively lower price of the Sherman allowed huge numbers of this tank to be produced. This allowed many divisions, even many infantry divisions, their own organic Sherman assets. Some infantry divisions had more tanks than German panzer divisions did. The use of steel for naval construction amounted to the equivalent of approximately 67,000 tanks; and consequently only about 53,500 tanks were produced during 1942 and 1943.[16] --Wikipedia
@clintonearlwalker True, and as with the Soviet Union aswell, mass produced "tanks" like this won over small numbers of quality tanks. Still......only just
@Valkmir I know which side won the war and Sherman tanks were part of the reason why. There were still many Sherman tanks operating at the end of the war and for many years after, it was the Axis tanks that "failed".
@clintonearlwalker how did the united states helped win the war? when the war was almost over I cant stand all these stupid americans that don't use their brain to just think about things that is so easy to see, things like the russia was at war with germany for years and that when the americans got into the war it ended in less then one year so how did the united state win the war...............
@BillBone3 You kind of answered the question yourself didn't you bub? The Russians were at war for years before America was ever involved. There is a big difference between being involved in a war and winning. If it wasn't for America, all of Europe would still be Nazi. Personally, I can't stand foreign idiots posting garbage on an American website about things of which they know nothing.
@clintonearlwalker will you fuck off with this shit of " if it wasn't for America ". listen pal, we needed america manufacturing prowess, your guns and bullets, that is without doubt a fact, but also is fact that you were dragged into the war by japan slapping you hard at pearl harbour. this meant that you came with manpower too. bonus. we would have won the war without america, it just would have taken a damned sight longer. the russians would've done your job. their winters did germany in.
@MrTubbymarshall You sound like a typical limey. I often wonder is the US made the right decision helping Britain and the Communists survive instead of the Nazi's. I wonder who would have won if the US sent it's shermans and aircraft to Hitler and launched bombing attacks on Britain from Iceland?
So what, I misspelled Auschwitz? This isn't a spelling contest, you are completely avoiding my point. About what you said of the US maybe being better of helping the Nazi's. Yeah, that part. I hope you were being sarcastic, but still, saying stuff like that because you don't agree with someone random on the internet is stupid.
By the way, have you ever been to one of those camps? Visited Auschwitz I and II last year. It's really impressive.
lolz i cant help but wonder what this beast could do if you dumped a present day tank engine in the back, itd be something altogether new to see a sherman barreling down a highway at 120 kph XD
The Sherman was a good tank at the beginning of the war. It could easily take out Mark 3's and 4's and Fiats. That was the vast majority of the Axis armour that Sherman crews encountered up through the end of 1943. US/UK used their armour for infantry support not so much to engage in anti-tank combat. The Allies had overwhelming air supriority for that.
The uber-menschen on this board make it sound like no German armour was ever destroyed in combat. They got Napalmed. - And ref. Arrancourt.
It makes me mad how everyone is like'" THA SHERMAN IS SHITZ, ITS GOT KILLZ BUYZ THE GERMANZ!" yeah, it wasn't built for anti- tank combat, whereas that was really the only thing Germans had in mind. It's like comparing a Heavy duty truck to an electric car....
The sherman was way more reliable than anything the germans built. It was a good machine. BUT it was not intented to fight against heavier german tanks. It was able to measure against Panze III and IV. For practical reasons (storage space in ships among others) it was decided to keep it in production til the end of the war.
@chromesphere Depends on the Panzer. Sherman was better protected then the Panzer II and III, and it's protection and firepower were comparable to the up-gunned late-war Panzer IVs.
the thing everyone forgets when talking shit about the Sherman M4 series tanks; IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR TANK ON TANK BATTLES! IT WAS INFANTRY SUPPORT! EVERYONE ONLY COMPARES IT IN TANK BATTLES AGAINST THE TIGER! THE DIFFERENCE IS THE TIGER WAS A DEFENSIVE TANK DESIGNED FOR TANK ON TANK BATTLES...THE SHERMAN WAS NOT! Dumbass thinking they're experts dont know shit.
Every tank has its flaws and strong points but the one thing we had over the enemy in WWII along with our allies was amount of numbers and how may tanks and vehicles we made. Still I even like seeing the German tanks at full power and going down the road like this and preforming what they where made to do.
Not wanting to make an argument its just my thoughts and to the guys that did this, You all have my thanks and AWSOME JOB!
The sherman was faster,easier to repair and was more manuverable,it was also lighter meaning that it could go places that the heavier tigers couldn't go.
Over all a better design,the only areas it lacked in were firepower and armor.
Now I'm by no means going AXIS TANKS DA BEST NAZIS GO HURR DURR, I'm just repeating what many allied engineers, tank drivers, infantrymen, scientists knew to be true that one on one axis tanks won. But no matter how better a tank is if its 1 vs 20 its going to lose. The allies knew this and that is just one of hundreds of reasons why they won. (also Germany has recovered and is currently 3rd in exports in the world and has a very good educational system)
@ApB0993 Germany recovered all they had gained during the secong world war? Land, resources and all? And what educational system was I referring too? It wasn't Germany's. History shows that the germans had better tanks, but the war wasn't faught with tanks alone. As a war, holistically the U.S. and allies walked the germans especially near the end as the germans couldn't resupply. Yes other nations played a significant role, but the war turned in favor of the allies once the U.S. entered.
@jet79637 Germany is more now than it ever was.. The economic crisis hardy effects their economy.
Lets take a look across the ocean. Wait a minute.. People are living in tents next to their empty houses.. Prisons are stacking up prisoners in the cafeteria because there are just so damn many of them. Their credit rating got dumped because you are bums.. The educational system is a joke, so are the hospitals and care system. What ze hell happened to ze Amies??
@ApB0993 Here are the facts. The US educates the smartest Caucasians in the world. We educate the smartest Africans in the world. The US educates the smartest Asians in the world. We educate the smartest Hispanics in the world. If you compare the Average US to a country that has essentially no Africans or Hispanics, we look bad. The small difference between averages for these groups are smaller than the differences within groups, so you can not make decisions based on groups.
Historical fact shows that Germany was defeated by the allies both times not just the U.S also the Germans did get destroyed pretty badly after they a third front was opened. Next historical fact shows us that Germany had the best tanks but they also had a smaller number of tanks because German tanks took time to make unlike most allied tanks, like the panther for example it inflicted major casualties on all fronts but was decimated by the fact there wasn't as many of them.
@ApB0993 Defeating Germany was a team effort, but Germany built the team by attacking or occupying their allies. USSR was German ally against Poland, Poland was German ally against Czechoslovakia, Germany declared war on US after Pearl Harbor attacks. Germany occupied Vichy France after US/Brit landings in North Africa. After US/Brits took Sicily, Italy wanted to leave the war, but Germany occupied them, and so Italy became an anti-Axis ally.
@haiherosner lol sorry they all got blow'd up... *even if they were better cuz the army ignored patton after he fund J Walter Christie out of his own pocket which is why we had the sherman not t-34...*
@username0u812ic The ones without too much American propaganda crap and lies. Look at the stats before u say something US fanboy, those little Tommy cookers were ripped appart by almost all German armor.
@username0u812ic Your a fucking dumbass. Germany had to fight 3 great nations and lots of other smaller countries that just literally spammed crappy vehicles, the Germans were completely outnumbered, but they still managed to destroy a lot of allied armor becouse of their superior armor that eventually was overran by allied air support.
@username0u812ic I won't even think of arguing with an idiot like you, you obviously don't know shit about world war 2 history. And the fact that the Germans are a minority nowaday in their own country (caused by immigrant muslim scum) doesn't have anything to do with Germany kicking allied ass in WWII.
@username0u812ic 'Kicked ass' is a totaly wrong term for it, sure i know Germany lost, but the allies didn't gain victory by just crushing te German army without any problems like most retarded US fanboys think. German military was the best of it's time, with the best equipment and the bravest soldiers. Take a look at the stats and facts (the ones without allied lies and propaganda), and tell me again who 'kicked ass'. Hollywood movies and games aren't the truth like most of you idiots think.
Historical fact shows that Germany was defeated twice by the U.S. fanboys! Germany has never fully recovered from their failure as a nation from the last world war. You’re a total moron and sadly it reveals the state of your educational system in your dump part of the world. You misunderstand your desire for something to be true for actual historical account. Believe what you want, but reality is that the Germans were crushed and their land was laid to waste, they were killed and they lost.
@jet79637 One must give some credit to the USSR, though tempered by their actions as a German ally early in the war. USSR destroyed about 80% of German ally at the cost of over 1 million second lieutenants (and another 20 million other ranks).
@Zfk41 german military the best LOl first the german surface navy the kriegsmarine was worse surface navy in WW2 bismarck and tirpitz obsolete crap on drawing board, graf spee, bismarck blucher all sunk on first combat cruise, tirpitz only fired its guns at weather station could not put 1 aircraft carrier into service US built over 140 carriers Iowa class BB 2 generations ahead of shit bismarck german bombers the worse in WW2 DO 17 HE111, stuka obsolete crap P51 P47 owned the skies over germany
@jers59I must say that their navy, and some of their planes were much worse then the allied had. The Bismarck was not crap, and was the most advanced battleship of it's time, it took out the Hood 'the unsinkable pride of the British navy'. They made the big mistake to send the Bismarck out with only low fuel and Prinz Eugen. It was hard to sink the Bismarck, the British attacked with Swordfishes, 3 large battleships and some other smaller ones, and eventually the Germans sank the Bismarck.
@jers59 And then u got annother good side of the German Kriegsmarine, the German U-boats sank over 3000 merchant and small warships, around 180 large battleships. I mus admit that German bombers were total crap, but you can't say this about the Stuka or (most) Messerschmitt, Stuka had proved great during the Blitzkrieg and their killratio tells enough, ME was a overall good plane but could not always deal with USAF and RAF planes like P51 and Spitfire.
@Zfk41 german uboat happy time was short time over 740 uboats sunk in WW2 they were never threat to US and 180 large battleships sunk? the US had about 23 battleships in WW2 lost 2 of them the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor Arizona and oklahoma, The royal navy did not have 180 battleships so explain that figure?
@militarymuseumvol Thats right happy time was very short time over 740 Uboats sunk in WW2 most of the US oil supply for east coast came from the gulf coast and texas through pipeline on land no uboat threat there. US built over 2.700 Liberty ships including building one and sending it to sea in 7 days, german navy was no threat the greatest axis navy and biggest threat was IJN it had better ships including carriers more professional officers and better sailors then kriegsmarine
@militarymuseumvol No never said that I said the US obtained most of its oil from Texas oil fields which was transported by land based pipe lines the uboat was no threat to the oil pipeline
@jers59 ok then. i took it that way because of how you had worded it. in reality, the U Boats did pose a threat to the U.S., notably in the Gulf of Mexico
@Zfk41 Stuka wasn't that good, it had a poor armanent, and was an easy target and many other countries had better fighterbombers, such as USA(Thunderbolt), UK(Typhoon),USSR(Sturmovik)
but, the me262, that truly was a genius plane for its time
@Teewan100 Stuka had proven itself at beginning of the war, and played a big role in the Blitzkrieg. It was really effective (especially at the beginning of the war). Look at what Hans Ulrich Rudel did with his stuka he destroyed 10+planes,over 500 enemy tanks and he sank a Russian war ship.The Stuka was good at the eastern front and with the early blitzkrieg. To be honest, i don't know much about Stuka fighting US and UK, it is possible that some planes were better, Stuka was not a bad plane.
@Zfk41 The stuka was failure it was failure on western front it was devastated during the battle of britain and withdrawn from the west in 1940. Its faults fixed landing gear, slow speed, poor defensive armaments. Best dive bombers in WW2 by far were Douglas Dauntles and Curtis Helldiver
@Zfk41 german tanks were crap most broke down before they reached the battlefields, M4 Shermans were destroying modern soviet MBT in 67 and 73 Israeli arab wars only crap tiger and panther tanks left were in museums. LOL
@jers59 No, most tanks didn't broke down before they reached the battlefields this is much exaggerated, sure they had sometimes engine trouble, but most tanks that didn t reach the battlefield was because of low fuel. M4 Sherman is 100% Crap, those Tommy küchers were way too easy for German tank crews, 1 hit, and the thing caught fire. There aren't any serious tank aces with US WWII tanks+ I know for sure if you ask a veteran if he rather be in a Tiger I or in a M4, he chooses the Tiger I.
@jers59 M4 with standard 75MM could barely penetrate the Tiger I's armor. Front; 0% penetration, doesn't matter how close, only if the sherman was closer then 250M and shoots at the rear there was a small possibility of penetrarion, Tiger could take the front of a Sherman from 2000M. Even with the 76 the Sherman had to be closer then 500M to penetrate, or shooting the rear.
@jers59 German tanks weren't used after WWII because they were almost all destroyed and the few ones left were melted. US and UK did capture very few German panzers to learn and steal German technology, just like they did with other science and technology projects of Nazi Germany. Get your fact straight, stop embarrasing yourself US fanboy.
@Zfk41 Nazib boy by 1945 US had M26 Pershing coming online, the brits had Centurion and soviets the JS111 all better tanks then tiger and panther certainly more reliable. german technology they could not produce 1 good bomber in WW2 no 4 engine bombers the HE111 and DO17, JU87 were obsolete crap by 1939-40, the german surface navy was worse in WW2 bismarck and tirpitz were obsolete crap they could not put 1 aircraft carrier in service. US built over 140 carriers in WW2,
@jers59 Nazi boy?Is that all you can come up with?I thought we were talking about the Sherman here, 'the tank that was much better then German crap' I proved you wrong there.M26 Pershing had the same battle strenght as the Tiger I and Tiger had advantage;a much better crew and better targeting equipment,Tiger I was from 42 and after 3 years the Pershing was all what they could come up with. Centurion and improved JS tanks were after the war,Germany could've made better tanks with resources
@Zfk41 M26 could easily take out tiger and easy eight Sherman could as well as sherman firefly, Shermans are still in service with some militaries 66 years after WW2 and Centurion entered service in 1945 served in Korea as well as JS111
@jers59 Just because of the 2MM difference of the guns calibre doesn't make it any better like dumbasses as you think. M26 could take out the Tiger, so could the Tiger take out the M26 (wich happened to the first Pershing that saw action). Sherman with 76 or 17P still had to come very close to the Tiger for penetration> KwK36 L/56= always 1 shot kill in less then 1500M (if not on drivers plate).
Sherman is not in service anymore for the last 20 years.
The M26 wasn't fielded to counter the Tiger, it was fielded to counter the Panther. By late-war it became very clear that Panthers were far more numerous then the Tiger, and thus the bigger threat. M26 was responsible for far more German losses then vice-versa. Of the 3 M26s KO'd in Europe, only 1 was to a German tank, and none of them were destroyed. One M26 KO'd a Tiger at almost 1,000 yards thru the gun mantlet..Pershing was a great tank (if not a bit underpowered) with a great gun.
@jers59 And please, do not even mention the Sherman anymore, it was a good tank for spam, nothing more. You really let yourself look like a fool if you are gonna argue about the fact that the Sherman was better then German panzers.
Good tank for spam? The M4A3s were at least as good as the up-gunned Panzer IVs. It's armor was just as good, it's gun was better (M1-series 76mm was supperior to the 75mm L/43 and L/48) and it was far more mobile. M4s were also superior in every respect to the T-34/85. The M4A3E8 proved it's superiority to the T-34/85 in Korea. Sherman was, hands down, one of the best medium tanks of the war, and not even History Channel can deny it this..
@Zfk41 Yeah that's true, the US Sherman wasn't great against tanks, but early tanks were built for different combat situations. The M4 was initially designed to support infantry and give them a base of fire. Similar to an IFV without the APC role. It was fast, maneuverable, and had a low velocity/weight armament and armor to support this. It was also well designed in that they were fast to produce/repair. The M4 wasn't a bad tank. The Germans just had a better approach to what a tank's role is.
@Zfk41 the Sherman was wayyyy more mass-produced than the German tanks. It took 3 Shermans to kill one Panzer. One wouls distract and sacrifice himself, the 2nd would fire at the treads and the last would finish it off. And Shermans traveled in big packs. Its smaller and weaker yes, but they were a hell of a lot more.
@TheJosh375 A standard M4 Sherman with an 75 MM couldn't take out a Tiger I without being closer than 100 meters at the rear. Americans weren't like the Japanese to 'sacrifice' and it has nothing to do with distraction. US armor wasn't really a big treath for Panzers (if not in too large numbers), US air superiority was a much bigger problem.
@Zfk41 I said PANZER not Tiger. And yes they did sacrifice themselves. They of course weren't told they were going to be sacrificed but there's NO chance a Panzer vs a Sherman would ever actually occur one on one. And when the P51s were flying above, the Germans already knew they would lose the war.
@Zfk41 yep, too bad there was 20 of them for every tiger on the field of world war 2, not to mention bits and pieces so generalized you could rebuild an entire sherman out of the leftover wrecks from a fight while a broken tread or a damaged engine meant an abandoned tank for the germans :P
@redreaper2020 The tank Sherman the good tank but only for a peace life so spoke advice about these tanks, in red army the tank Sherman had a nickname the moving house because it had a high silhouette and was a good target for German tanks. Also tanks Sherman frequent breakages of the engine and bad rubber on skating rinks which had bad passableness from for narrow caterpillars exfoliated through some kilometers. Т-34 was much easier also than many lacks had no though was also less comfortable.
@redreaper2020 the tank Sherman it is a nonsense I saw tanks in a museum the cities of Aberdeens (video) where all technics was in very bad condition open-air so people which can act only do not love history and all that is connected with it. The barbarous attitude to combat materialGerman tankmen named tanks Sherman lighters in Korea Т-34 did not modernize so did not consider it necessary and of Shermans still tried to make that new
@redreaper2020 Ну and the most important if in Т-34 there were Soviet veterans tankmen at Sherman there would be no chances. In general it is very surprising to see in working order .
@Zfk41 Well, in one on one, surely. But WWII was an industrial war and Sherman won the war because they were more easily repleacable and repairable. The were faster than the Tiger, and on snow, were almost silent (For tanks, of course !). The legendary Tiger and Panther had some critical flaw, too heavy and costly (Tiger) and many early flaw and too complexe for rookie crew to handle (For the Panther.)
@xCh34pShOtx Sure. Look at the armor and tell me wich tank wins in this category. The 7.5 Kwk 42 was comparable to the 17Pr. , the Kwk was a higher velocity gun (vs. 17Pr.)
The Panther had (moslty) a much better crew, because of their trainig, a better radio and range/targeting equipment. I won't deny that the Firefly could take out the Panther, wich sure happened. It depends on the circumstances, but the Germans still had their advantage.
@Zfk41 I agree that the training and equipment were better at the beginning of the war but by the end they had only conscripts and whatever meager supplies they could scrape together. Hitler had better stuff, so he was overconfident and over-extended himself to the extreme. The difference was we KNEW we could continue to produce the Sherman at a steady pace, and that it was a reliable, well-built tank, if underpowered. Hitler's resources were running out.
@geeknproud321 Exactly. However, let's Sherman was never underpowered. It was just lacking in modifications. The T-34 was the tank that could never be upgunned after the war.
@Tyco200 I think it was a 102mm French Naval gun actually. I do agree that you could upgrade the crap out of them though. The Super Shermans put together in Israel were entirely retrofitted with modern electronics suites, better guns, and modern reactive armor much like the M48/M60 Patton. They could have easily taken any tank produced during the world war and were actually used successfully against much more modern tanks like the T-55 and T-62 during Yom Kippur and the 6 Days War.
@Tyco200 It does stand to be said that the Israelis are excellently trained professional soldiers. When the Super Sherman did see combat it was against massed formations charging wildly using conscripts with no training at all. Their opponents didn't even know how to properly aim a rifle let alone operate a tank. This isn't a shot against Muslims but extremists. They literally believe that their strength of will and indoctrination is better training than professional military schooling.
just fucking awesome!!!
looks like a great time driving a sherman tank around
EverydayBullshit 1 day ago
Nice video. I was, however, quite relieved to hear the music finally stop, only to be discouraged when it started again. Some of us simply want to hear these beautiful machines, and nothing more.
RevDogg 3 weeks ago
well how fast does it go?
32middlelinebacker 1 month ago
Most people don't realize, this thing was the fastest armored vehicle going. Almost no one knows or realizes most of these things were equipped with radial aircraft engines. You only needed one sharp country boy that knew how to twiddle a few nuts and bolts and this thing was the rocket you see in this video. This left enemy tanks in the dust. Yea it took four of these to take out a tiger but the in the meantime you only had 2700 tiger ones and twos compared to 55 thousand Sherman's.
Spitfireseven 1 month ago
Germans used to call Shermans "Tommy Cookers" to describe how fast they blew up when hit. Even Sherman crews called them "Rhonson Lighters". There was a radio commercial about Rhonson cigarette lighters back then that went "Rhonson Lighters: One strike lights it up every time"
starguard 2 months ago
Sherman = target practice for the germans
moek111 2 months ago
@moek111
they need lock-on System -_-
iloveredalert3 2 months ago
@moek111
LOL
thejurassicpark 1 month ago
@moek111 you = fucking dumb ass
MARINECORPS1251 1 month ago
i love it, nice tank, good resto, the crew, great professional mens!!!!!!!!!!!!!
buines2007 2 months ago
35 MPH in a Sherman? that is pretty crazy. ^_^
The tracks appeared to hold up well too. I'm assuming they are modified as I don't think they bothered with rubber pads back in the day.
the barrel condom is a nice touch too. ;)
l337pwnage 2 months ago
Sherman ignores stop sign... AWESOME.
NorHuxy 2 months ago
Sherman the good tank against Japan but
Against Germany it was faster a victim
disly777 2 months ago
how fast is it going?
idiot00 2 months ago
The American tactical philosophy was significantly different than the Germans. They wanted LOTS of small, fast tanks to support advancing infantry – not to engage in slug fests with other tanks. The best way to kill a tank is with an airplane. In the end, I'd say the American concepts worked.
TheTruepatriot1776 2 months ago
@TheTruepatriot1776
couldn't agree more
VantexRcTank 2 months ago
@TheTruepatriot1776 Even in slug fests, Shermans did well when armed with the 76. Against Panzer Ausf. Hs, it only took at Sherman at 800 meters to get a direct shot to end the fight.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@TheTruepatriot1776
Correct, My grandfather was in an armored recon unit. Their standard orders were to engage German tanks only long enough to fix their position for an airstrike, no head to head slugfests.
8digitPDX 1 month ago
Loved how they blew through the STOP sign at speed...I mean, who's gonna argue with a frickin' SHERMAN TANK, fer f*cks sake! Reminds me of a line from that old Humphrey Bogart film "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" -- "Stop Sign?....we don' need no steenking STOP SIGNS !!!"
rrclerk68 3 months ago
Dear Santa...
Treetop64 3 months ago
THE NAZIS LOST NOTHING ELES MATTERS
markm1964 3 months ago
50,000 shermans >>> 1,300 tigers
SmedleyDouwright 3 months ago
how fast cant this one go and better yet what engin
bilboardguy 3 months ago
Kill the horrible music so we can here that beast run.
141bpm 3 months ago 2
Sweet Ride, naysayers say what they like. Shermans got the job done.
chevelle1967 3 months ago
Love this video. Never seen a Sherman tank so close and so long. Good video
kwokwing 3 months ago
Tommy cooker ^_^
Aserox 3 months ago
What motor is this tank?
zascas1000 3 months ago 2
thats a cool way to get around
kguen6993 4 months ago
This looks like a sherman V.
ThePooppantsman 4 months ago
--- only completely untalented men was able to come up this infamous piece of shit. ---
norwargenfeld 4 months ago
Funny thing about Shermans. They didn't have a high silhouette, they had a narrow silhouette. The tank was as tall as a Panzer IV, yet much narrower. Because the proportions are off, it makes the Sherman look much taller than it really is. So when compared to most contemporary tanks, the Sherman was actually a harder target to hit due to being so narrow.
neontrtl 4 months ago
Panther- out of business 1945
Sherman-Still in use by Israelis well into the 70's. Bet they are still prowling around in some 3rd world shit holes.
oldschoolgreentube 4 months ago
with this speed he could be back in america in 2days and tell them that they should produce some better tanks, because all his friends already got penetrate by the germans.. (btw.. if you already use this kinda music with the sherman.. what will it be if you will film a tiger.. deathmetal?!)
tiMm01233 4 months ago
Good speed of a lighter to escape from the Panther and the Tiger
Vanyaaynav 4 months ago
To put all arguments to rest it is true German tanks were of better quallity, but only for a short time. By the time a German Panther or Tiger got two days of battle service in, they usually needed five or six days of repair. So they had a shock value, but were to over engineered for Germany to hanndle at the time. Whilest the American Shermans, were yes notorisously Tommy Cooker. They were very effective due to the shear numbers of them, just as the Germans were due to the gun and armor.
Sharef14 4 months ago
This isn't a European tank, and compared to tiger, panzer and leopard... yeah
blodstainer 4 months ago
I think many people are unaware that the US decided to build large numbers of smaller, less armored tanks for the simple reason they had to be transported across the Atlantic Ocean. Say what you want about how great German tanks were, the Shermans did their job, they helped win the war.
clintonearlwalker 5 months ago 29
@clintonearlwalker excellent assesment
Dancing88Mike 4 months ago
@Dancing88Mike The US was fully capable of building large, heavy, lumbering, over engineered armored vehicles, they had a war to win though.
clintonearlwalker 4 months ago
@clintonearlwalker and they were easy to mass produce - sure it took 3 or 4 or even 5 shermans to knock out a tiger, but when they out number 20 to 1, no prob
timbitski 4 months ago
@timbitski
Dear god im tired of people saying this.. You dont compare 1 single tank to another specially when you wanna talk about mass numbers... The americans by the end of the war if you count all the relavent tanks built like the wolverine and slugger and M4 and the varients that saw combat.. They produced about 40k tanks.
The germans if you count the stug3 up and the panzer 4 up they build around 30k tanks... Care to clarify that 20:1 ratio again ?
1ownjoo2 3 months ago
@clintonearlwalker
Yes, they were also transported to the Pacific.. Imagine if Russia had tried to send T-34s to say, South America..?
jordan390a 3 months ago
@clintonearlwalker Exactly. Most people are also unaware of just how effective Shermans were as medium tanks. In the deserts of Africa, only the 88 could kill a Sherman. Pz IIIs and IVs both made easy targets for the M3-75mm gun, which had an AP of about 60+mms at that time. Pz IV f.2 was the only tank capable, besides the heavier, super uber German machines that were invincible to everything, that could take on a Sherman.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@clintonearlwalker It would also be nice to note the E8. Shermans armed with the 76 could engage Tigers at a total distance of 1,000 meters with standard AP. Panthers, on the other hand, had superior armor. This, however, was quickly overcome with HVAP, which records hits as long at 1,600 meters with the M1-76mm on the glacis plate.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@clintonearlwalker Another thing we should remember is the armor rumor. The 51mms of slopping armor gave the Sherman about 192mms of frontal armor, if it were "not slopped." The T-34, on the other hand, due to inferior quality/thickness only got about 92-98mms total. The Sherman's 75mm could take on 60mms + at 1,000 meters. The 76.2 could only do the same at 600 meters, making it entirely useless against the KwK L-40 75mm. Sherman also had large crew spaces and ammo storage, T-34 lacked both.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@Tyco200 Make no mistake, I was at a tank museum in Aberdeen Maryland, they had an example of nearly every tank sitting in field. The German "Panther" tank appeared to be the meanest on the lot. A Sherman looked like a beer can in comparison. The Panther had large scoops of armor blown away from what looked like an ice cream scoop about 5 inches deep. The Sherman was inferior in many ways, but quantity has a quality all it's own.
clintonearlwalker 2 months ago
@clintonearlwalker Yes, the quote from Lenin about quality is very true
t110d93 1 month ago
@t110d93 The relatively lower price of the Sherman allowed huge numbers of this tank to be produced. This allowed many divisions, even many infantry divisions, their own organic Sherman assets. Some infantry divisions had more tanks than German panzer divisions did. The use of steel for naval construction amounted to the equivalent of approximately 67,000 tanks; and consequently only about 53,500 tanks were produced during 1942 and 1943.[16] --Wikipedia
clintonearlwalker 1 month ago
@clintonearlwalker True, and as with the Soviet Union aswell, mass produced "tanks" like this won over small numbers of quality tanks. Still......only just
TalonMercenary 2 months ago
@clintonearlwalker say that again if you had to pilot one of those deathtraps in the war. Keyboardwarrior. The sherman was a fail.
Valkmir 1 month ago
@Valkmir I know which side won the war and Sherman tanks were part of the reason why. There were still many Sherman tanks operating at the end of the war and for many years after, it was the Axis tanks that "failed".
clintonearlwalker 1 month ago
@clintonearlwalker how did the united states helped win the war? when the war was almost over I cant stand all these stupid americans that don't use their brain to just think about things that is so easy to see, things like the russia was at war with germany for years and that when the americans got into the war it ended in less then one year so how did the united state win the war...............
BillBone3 1 month ago
@BillBone3 You kind of answered the question yourself didn't you bub? The Russians were at war for years before America was ever involved. There is a big difference between being involved in a war and winning. If it wasn't for America, all of Europe would still be Nazi. Personally, I can't stand foreign idiots posting garbage on an American website about things of which they know nothing.
clintonearlwalker 1 month ago
@clintonearlwalker will you fuck off with this shit of " if it wasn't for America ". listen pal, we needed america manufacturing prowess, your guns and bullets, that is without doubt a fact, but also is fact that you were dragged into the war by japan slapping you hard at pearl harbour. this meant that you came with manpower too. bonus. we would have won the war without america, it just would have taken a damned sight longer. the russians would've done your job. their winters did germany in.
MrTubbymarshall 1 month ago
@clintonearlwalker you listen/believe too much hollywood bullshit.
MrTubbymarshall 1 month ago
@MrTubbymarshall You sound like a typical limey. I often wonder is the US made the right decision helping Britain and the Communists survive instead of the Nazi's. I wonder who would have won if the US sent it's shermans and aircraft to Hitler and launched bombing attacks on Britain from Iceland?
clintonearlwalker 1 month ago
@clintonearlwalker
If you seriously wonder that then you need to get your head checked. That's f*cked up man.
Visit a concentration camp like Auswitsch. That would teach you to never, ever show sympathy for the nazi's like that again.
And by the way, the US didn't win the war. The Allies won the war. -in which the US had an important role, I must admit-
RazgrizXVIII 1 month ago
@RazgrizXVIII Actually bub, the German translation of Oświęcim is "Oushwitz" or "Auschwitz", not even remotely "Auswitsch".
clintonearlwalker 1 month ago
@clintonearlwalker
So what, I misspelled Auschwitz? This isn't a spelling contest, you are completely avoiding my point. About what you said of the US maybe being better of helping the Nazi's. Yeah, that part. I hope you were being sarcastic, but still, saying stuff like that because you don't agree with someone random on the internet is stupid.
By the way, have you ever been to one of those camps? Visited Auschwitz I and II last year. It's really impressive.
RazgrizXVIII 1 month ago
lolz i cant help but wonder what this beast could do if you dumped a present day tank engine in the back, itd be something altogether new to see a sherman barreling down a highway at 120 kph XD
rhino2960 5 months ago
why do you ass holes ruin these video's with shit music playing?
nedfan1 5 months ago
the only reason it was good in WW2 is because 1: easy maintenance and cheap to produce a 2: they build almost 50,000 of the things
Trixforkidz 5 months ago
The Sherman was a good tank at the beginning of the war. It could easily take out Mark 3's and 4's and Fiats. That was the vast majority of the Axis armour that Sherman crews encountered up through the end of 1943. US/UK used their armour for infantry support not so much to engage in anti-tank combat. The Allies had overwhelming air supriority for that.
The uber-menschen on this board make it sound like no German armour was ever destroyed in combat. They got Napalmed. - And ref. Arrancourt.
Bamruff62 5 months ago
we won with numbers and that's really it..
DELTA912420 5 months ago 2
Fact: us commander sacrificed 6 shemale tank to take down 1 tiger.
End of story.
RaymondXI 5 months ago 2
It makes me mad how everyone is like'" THA SHERMAN IS SHITZ, ITS GOT KILLZ BUYZ THE GERMANZ!" yeah, it wasn't built for anti- tank combat, whereas that was really the only thing Germans had in mind. It's like comparing a Heavy duty truck to an electric car....
SpadXIIIFlyer 5 months ago
The sherman was way more reliable than anything the germans built. It was a good machine. BUT it was not intented to fight against heavier german tanks. It was able to measure against Panze III and IV. For practical reasons (storage space in ships among others) it was decided to keep it in production til the end of the war.
desertbootguy 5 months ago
Is that a real one left over from WW2 or did you build it/replica?
Please advise,
P in FL
perryinjax 5 months ago
I'm American, and support American made stuff. But I gotta say, I'd feel much safer in a Panzer than a Sherman...
chromesphere 5 months ago
@chromesphere Depends on the Panzer. Sherman was better protected then the Panzer II and III, and it's protection and firepower were comparable to the up-gunned late-war Panzer IVs.
wun1gee 5 months ago
the thing everyone forgets when talking shit about the Sherman M4 series tanks; IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR TANK ON TANK BATTLES! IT WAS INFANTRY SUPPORT! EVERYONE ONLY COMPARES IT IN TANK BATTLES AGAINST THE TIGER! THE DIFFERENCE IS THE TIGER WAS A DEFENSIVE TANK DESIGNED FOR TANK ON TANK BATTLES...THE SHERMAN WAS NOT! Dumbass thinking they're experts dont know shit.
militarymuseumvol 5 months ago in playlist militarymuseumvol's Favorited Videos
Cool video, what is the top speed of a sherman? seems to go pretty fast ^^
FunkyKrakje 5 months ago
Every tank has its flaws and strong points but the one thing we had over the enemy in WWII along with our allies was amount of numbers and how may tanks and vehicles we made. Still I even like seeing the German tanks at full power and going down the road like this and preforming what they where made to do.
Not wanting to make an argument its just my thoughts and to the guys that did this, You all have my thanks and AWSOME JOB!
nicholassmth1 5 months ago
@FreeTrecker That was it's true role in combat.
It held it's own against the tigers but in the P.T.O. it was the clear winner against Japanese tanks (The real tin cans in WW2)
Pfletch83 5 months ago
The sherman was faster,easier to repair and was more manuverable,it was also lighter meaning that it could go places that the heavier tigers couldn't go.
Over all a better design,the only areas it lacked in were firepower and armor.
Pfletch83 5 months ago
Looks cool, I like tanks.
CastleG8 6 months ago
I can leave this comment because a Sherman got my dad home in one piece. 10th AD 20th AIB company B
goinggrayearly 6 months ago
Do you have to have a tank liscence?
Mauser2012 6 months ago
Now I'm by no means going AXIS TANKS DA BEST NAZIS GO HURR DURR, I'm just repeating what many allied engineers, tank drivers, infantrymen, scientists knew to be true that one on one axis tanks won. But no matter how better a tank is if its 1 vs 20 its going to lose. The allies knew this and that is just one of hundreds of reasons why they won. (also Germany has recovered and is currently 3rd in exports in the world and has a very good educational system)
ApB0993 6 months ago
@ApB0993 Germany recovered all they had gained during the secong world war? Land, resources and all? And what educational system was I referring too? It wasn't Germany's. History shows that the germans had better tanks, but the war wasn't faught with tanks alone. As a war, holistically the U.S. and allies walked the germans especially near the end as the germans couldn't resupply. Yes other nations played a significant role, but the war turned in favor of the allies once the U.S. entered.
jet79637 6 months ago
@jet79637 Germany is more now than it ever was.. The economic crisis hardy effects their economy.
Lets take a look across the ocean. Wait a minute.. People are living in tents next to their empty houses.. Prisons are stacking up prisoners in the cafeteria because there are just so damn many of them. Their credit rating got dumped because you are bums.. The educational system is a joke, so are the hospitals and care system. What ze hell happened to ze Amies??
evildeathmonkey1 6 months ago
@evildeathmonkey1 Actually the crime rate in the us is dropping, despite the economy The criminologists are very unhappy.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@ApB0993 Here are the facts. The US educates the smartest Caucasians in the world. We educate the smartest Africans in the world. The US educates the smartest Asians in the world. We educate the smartest Hispanics in the world. If you compare the Average US to a country that has essentially no Africans or Hispanics, we look bad. The small difference between averages for these groups are smaller than the differences within groups, so you can not make decisions based on groups.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
Historical fact shows that Germany was defeated by the allies both times not just the U.S also the Germans did get destroyed pretty badly after they a third front was opened. Next historical fact shows us that Germany had the best tanks but they also had a smaller number of tanks because German tanks took time to make unlike most allied tanks, like the panther for example it inflicted major casualties on all fronts but was decimated by the fact there wasn't as many of them.
ApB0993 6 months ago
@ApB0993 Defeating Germany was a team effort, but Germany built the team by attacking or occupying their allies. USSR was German ally against Poland, Poland was German ally against Czechoslovakia, Germany declared war on US after Pearl Harbor attacks. Germany occupied Vichy France after US/Brit landings in North Africa. After US/Brits took Sicily, Italy wanted to leave the war, but Germany occupied them, and so Italy became an anti-Axis ally.
DonMeaker 6 months ago
TO napewno nie polskie drogi :D
tajemniczyxd100 6 months ago
Wat een kutmuziek!
burgardus 6 months ago
hellfires were faster
SLYR237 6 months ago
Wat een klote muziek ! Waarom laat je niet gewoon dat mooie geluid van de GAA horen ?
PA9A 6 months ago
how fast is it going?? 60km/h? that ia fast considering the Leopard IA would do 65 km/h, and was devellopped 50 years later.....
Indeed: It aint much if it aint Dutch.....
xxxxsimone 7 months ago
Comment removed
xxxxsimone 7 months ago
Comment removed
xxxxsimone 7 months ago
All shermans were fast... to catch fire when hit
doktorbimmer 7 months ago
Tiger tank's favorite snack, yummy!
haiherosner 7 months ago
Detroit Diesel 2-stroke diesel power!!!!!!
NH1880 7 months ago
Nice wheels dude!!
barbenH 7 months ago
damn this thing is hauling ass
TheKing1cobra 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Crappy tincan. Show us some German steel!
Zfk41 7 months ago 25
@Zfk41 Your absolutely right, show us some real German steel, A.K.A, Tiger Tank and Panther tank!
haiherosner 7 months ago
@haiherosner lol sorry they all got blow'd up... *even if they were better cuz the army ignored patton after he fund J Walter Christie out of his own pocket which is why we had the sherman not t-34...*
potatoradio 7 months ago
@Zfk41
Very few were maintained after the war, there are only a few museum pieces left
spikedgav 6 months ago
@Zfk41 the tank that conquered germany!
username0u812ic 6 months ago
@username0u812ic The tank that got raped by Germany!
Zfk41 6 months ago 13
@Zfk41 WHAT HISTORY BOOK HAVE YOU BEEN READING lmao!
username0u812ic 6 months ago
@username0u812ic The ones without too much American propaganda crap and lies. Look at the stats before u say something US fanboy, those little Tommy cookers were ripped appart by almost all German armor.
Zfk41 6 months ago 14
@Zfk41 my bad hitler won i guess im mistaken the germans won the war i guess what the fuck was i thinking.
username0u812ic 6 months ago
@username0u812ic Your a fucking dumbass. Germany had to fight 3 great nations and lots of other smaller countries that just literally spammed crappy vehicles, the Germans were completely outnumbered, but they still managed to destroy a lot of allied armor becouse of their superior armor that eventually was overran by allied air support.
Zfk41 6 months ago 4
@Zfk41 you are absolutly right the germans got their asses handed to them.in fact if you were to visit berlin today germans are a minority there.
username0u812ic 6 months ago
@username0u812ic I won't even think of arguing with an idiot like you, you obviously don't know shit about world war 2 history. And the fact that the Germans are a minority nowaday in their own country (caused by immigrant muslim scum) doesn't have anything to do with Germany kicking allied ass in WWII.
Zfk41 6 months ago 4
@Zfk41 sir the allies kicked german ass in WWII they surrendered unconditionally hitler committed suicide lol.
what dream world are you living in?also if national socialism was alive today in germany do you think germans would be a minority there?
username0u812ic 6 months ago
@username0u812ic 'Kicked ass' is a totaly wrong term for it, sure i know Germany lost, but the allies didn't gain victory by just crushing te German army without any problems like most retarded US fanboys think. German military was the best of it's time, with the best equipment and the bravest soldiers. Take a look at the stats and facts (the ones without allied lies and propaganda), and tell me again who 'kicked ass'. Hollywood movies and games aren't the truth like most of you idiots think.
Zfk41 6 months ago 4
Historical fact shows that Germany was defeated twice by the U.S. fanboys! Germany has never fully recovered from their failure as a nation from the last world war. You’re a total moron and sadly it reveals the state of your educational system in your dump part of the world. You misunderstand your desire for something to be true for actual historical account. Believe what you want, but reality is that the Germans were crushed and their land was laid to waste, they were killed and they lost.
jet79637 6 months ago
@jet79637 One must give some credit to the USSR, though tempered by their actions as a German ally early in the war. USSR destroyed about 80% of German ally at the cost of over 1 million second lieutenants (and another 20 million other ranks).
DonMeaker 6 months ago
@Zfk41 german military the best LOl first the german surface navy the kriegsmarine was worse surface navy in WW2 bismarck and tirpitz obsolete crap on drawing board, graf spee, bismarck blucher all sunk on first combat cruise, tirpitz only fired its guns at weather station could not put 1 aircraft carrier into service US built over 140 carriers Iowa class BB 2 generations ahead of shit bismarck german bombers the worse in WW2 DO 17 HE111, stuka obsolete crap P51 P47 owned the skies over germany
jers59 6 months ago
@jers59I must say that their navy, and some of their planes were much worse then the allied had. The Bismarck was not crap, and was the most advanced battleship of it's time, it took out the Hood 'the unsinkable pride of the British navy'. They made the big mistake to send the Bismarck out with only low fuel and Prinz Eugen. It was hard to sink the Bismarck, the British attacked with Swordfishes, 3 large battleships and some other smaller ones, and eventually the Germans sank the Bismarck.
Zfk41 6 months ago
@jers59 And then u got annother good side of the German Kriegsmarine, the German U-boats sank over 3000 merchant and small warships, around 180 large battleships. I mus admit that German bombers were total crap, but you can't say this about the Stuka or (most) Messerschmitt, Stuka had proved great during the Blitzkrieg and their killratio tells enough, ME was a overall good plane but could not always deal with USAF and RAF planes like P51 and Spitfire.
Zfk41 6 months ago
@Zfk41 german uboat happy time was short time over 740 uboats sunk in WW2 they were never threat to US and 180 large battleships sunk? the US had about 23 battleships in WW2 lost 2 of them the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor Arizona and oklahoma, The royal navy did not have 180 battleships so explain that figure?
jers59 6 months ago
@jers59 No i didn't mean only the most heavy battleships and cruisers, all different types of battlecruisers from small to large
Zfk41 6 months ago
@jers59 u botats never a threat to U.S.? thats funny
militarymuseumvol 5 months ago
@militarymuseumvol Thats right happy time was very short time over 740 Uboats sunk in WW2 most of the US oil supply for east coast came from the gulf coast and texas through pipeline on land no uboat threat there. US built over 2.700 Liberty ships including building one and sending it to sea in 7 days, german navy was no threat the greatest axis navy and biggest threat was IJN it had better ships including carriers more professional officers and better sailors then kriegsmarine
jers59 5 months ago
@jers59 Let me just make sure my perception is correct. You say there were no U Boats in the Gulf of Mexico posing a threat to the U.S.?
militarymuseumvol 5 months ago
@militarymuseumvol No never said that I said the US obtained most of its oil from Texas oil fields which was transported by land based pipe lines the uboat was no threat to the oil pipeline
jers59 5 months ago
@jers59 ok then. i took it that way because of how you had worded it. in reality, the U Boats did pose a threat to the U.S., notably in the Gulf of Mexico
militarymuseumvol 5 months ago
@Zfk41 Stuka wasn't that good, it had a poor armanent, and was an easy target and many other countries had better fighterbombers, such as USA(Thunderbolt), UK(Typhoon),USSR(Sturmovik)
but, the me262, that truly was a genius plane for its time
Teewan100 5 months ago
Comment removed
Zfk41 5 months ago
@Teewan100 Stuka had proven itself at beginning of the war, and played a big role in the Blitzkrieg. It was really effective (especially at the beginning of the war). Look at what Hans Ulrich Rudel did with his stuka he destroyed 10+planes,over 500 enemy tanks and he sank a Russian war ship.The Stuka was good at the eastern front and with the early blitzkrieg. To be honest, i don't know much about Stuka fighting US and UK, it is possible that some planes were better, Stuka was not a bad plane.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@Zfk41 The stuka was failure it was failure on western front it was devastated during the battle of britain and withdrawn from the west in 1940. Its faults fixed landing gear, slow speed, poor defensive armaments. Best dive bombers in WW2 by far were Douglas Dauntles and Curtis Helldiver
jers59 5 months ago
@Zfk41 german tanks were crap most broke down before they reached the battlefields, M4 Shermans were destroying modern soviet MBT in 67 and 73 Israeli arab wars only crap tiger and panther tanks left were in museums. LOL
jers59 5 months ago
@jers59 No, most tanks didn't broke down before they reached the battlefields this is much exaggerated, sure they had sometimes engine trouble, but most tanks that didn t reach the battlefield was because of low fuel. M4 Sherman is 100% Crap, those Tommy küchers were way too easy for German tank crews, 1 hit, and the thing caught fire. There aren't any serious tank aces with US WWII tanks+ I know for sure if you ask a veteran if he rather be in a Tiger I or in a M4, he chooses the Tiger I.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@jers59 M4 with standard 75MM could barely penetrate the Tiger I's armor. Front; 0% penetration, doesn't matter how close, only if the sherman was closer then 250M and shoots at the rear there was a small possibility of penetrarion, Tiger could take the front of a Sherman from 2000M. Even with the 76 the Sherman had to be closer then 500M to penetrate, or shooting the rear.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@jers59 German tanks weren't used after WWII because they were almost all destroyed and the few ones left were melted. US and UK did capture very few German panzers to learn and steal German technology, just like they did with other science and technology projects of Nazi Germany. Get your fact straight, stop embarrasing yourself US fanboy.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@Zfk41 Nazib boy by 1945 US had M26 Pershing coming online, the brits had Centurion and soviets the JS111 all better tanks then tiger and panther certainly more reliable. german technology they could not produce 1 good bomber in WW2 no 4 engine bombers the HE111 and DO17, JU87 were obsolete crap by 1939-40, the german surface navy was worse in WW2 bismarck and tirpitz were obsolete crap they could not put 1 aircraft carrier in service. US built over 140 carriers in WW2,
jers59 5 months ago
@jers59 Nazi boy?Is that all you can come up with?I thought we were talking about the Sherman here, 'the tank that was much better then German crap' I proved you wrong there.M26 Pershing had the same battle strenght as the Tiger I and Tiger had advantage;a much better crew and better targeting equipment,Tiger I was from 42 and after 3 years the Pershing was all what they could come up with. Centurion and improved JS tanks were after the war,Germany could've made better tanks with resources
Zfk41 5 months ago
@Zfk41 M26 could easily take out tiger and easy eight Sherman could as well as sherman firefly, Shermans are still in service with some militaries 66 years after WW2 and Centurion entered service in 1945 served in Korea as well as JS111
jers59 5 months ago
@jers59 Just because of the 2MM difference of the guns calibre doesn't make it any better like dumbasses as you think. M26 could take out the Tiger, so could the Tiger take out the M26 (wich happened to the first Pershing that saw action). Sherman with 76 or 17P still had to come very close to the Tiger for penetration> KwK36 L/56= always 1 shot kill in less then 1500M (if not on drivers plate).
Sherman is not in service anymore for the last 20 years.
Zfk41 5 months ago
The M26 wasn't fielded to counter the Tiger, it was fielded to counter the Panther. By late-war it became very clear that Panthers were far more numerous then the Tiger, and thus the bigger threat. M26 was responsible for far more German losses then vice-versa. Of the 3 M26s KO'd in Europe, only 1 was to a German tank, and none of them were destroyed. One M26 KO'd a Tiger at almost 1,000 yards thru the gun mantlet..Pershing was a great tank (if not a bit underpowered) with a great gun.
wun1gee 5 months ago
@jers59 And please, do not even mention the Sherman anymore, it was a good tank for spam, nothing more. You really let yourself look like a fool if you are gonna argue about the fact that the Sherman was better then German panzers.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@Zfk41 Sherman better then panzers the sherman won at El alamein and battle of bulge
jers59 5 months ago
@jers59 1 word; spam.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@jers59 Btw, in the Battle of the Bulge the Americans were lucky, the panzers ran out of fuel and they were destroyed by their crews.
Zfk41 5 months ago
Good tank for spam? The M4A3s were at least as good as the up-gunned Panzer IVs. It's armor was just as good, it's gun was better (M1-series 76mm was supperior to the 75mm L/43 and L/48) and it was far more mobile. M4s were also superior in every respect to the T-34/85. The M4A3E8 proved it's superiority to the T-34/85 in Korea. Sherman was, hands down, one of the best medium tanks of the war, and not even History Channel can deny it this..
wun1gee 5 months ago
@Zfk41 true but they had mobility and sheer numbers on there side.
Shabbernigdo 5 months ago
@Zfk41 Yes, and the swarming numbers of death fucked the Germans. Look who won.
Projectdie 5 months ago
@Zfk41 Yeah that's true, the US Sherman wasn't great against tanks, but early tanks were built for different combat situations. The M4 was initially designed to support infantry and give them a base of fire. Similar to an IFV without the APC role. It was fast, maneuverable, and had a low velocity/weight armament and armor to support this. It was also well designed in that they were fast to produce/repair. The M4 wasn't a bad tank. The Germans just had a better approach to what a tank's role is.
rediconAoC 5 months ago
@Zfk41 the Sherman was wayyyy more mass-produced than the German tanks. It took 3 Shermans to kill one Panzer. One wouls distract and sacrifice himself, the 2nd would fire at the treads and the last would finish it off. And Shermans traveled in big packs. Its smaller and weaker yes, but they were a hell of a lot more.
TheJosh375 5 months ago
@TheJosh375 A standard M4 Sherman with an 75 MM couldn't take out a Tiger I without being closer than 100 meters at the rear. Americans weren't like the Japanese to 'sacrifice' and it has nothing to do with distraction. US armor wasn't really a big treath for Panzers (if not in too large numbers), US air superiority was a much bigger problem.
Zfk41 5 months ago
@Zfk41 I said PANZER not Tiger. And yes they did sacrifice themselves. They of course weren't told they were going to be sacrificed but there's NO chance a Panzer vs a Sherman would ever actually occur one on one. And when the P51s were flying above, the Germans already knew they would lose the war.
TheJosh375 5 months ago
@Zfk41 and also don't forget about the Firefly addon to the sherman. A sherman w/ firefly vs a panzer is a bigger comparison.
TheJosh375 5 months ago
@Zfk41 yep, too bad there was 20 of them for every tiger on the field of world war 2, not to mention bits and pieces so generalized you could rebuild an entire sherman out of the leftover wrecks from a fight while a broken tread or a damaged engine meant an abandoned tank for the germans :P
rhino2960 5 months ago
@Zfk41 ironically it'd go on to rape the T-34/85 in Korea, and, with a new gun, the jews used it to tear through the T-55 and T-62. Hm.
redreaper2020 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 The tank Sherman the good tank but only for a peace life so spoke advice about these tanks, in red army the tank Sherman had a nickname the moving house because it had a high silhouette and was a good target for German tanks. Also tanks Sherman frequent breakages of the engine and bad rubber on skating rinks which had bad passableness from for narrow caterpillars exfoliated through some kilometers. Т-34 was much easier also than many lacks had no though was also less comfortable.
Vanyaaynav 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 the tank Sherman it is a nonsense I saw tanks in a museum the cities of Aberdeens (video) where all technics was in very bad condition open-air so people which can act only do not love history and all that is connected with it. The barbarous attitude to combat materialGerman tankmen named tanks Sherman lighters in Korea Т-34 did not modernize so did not consider it necessary and of Shermans still tried to make that new
Vanyaaynav 4 months ago
@redreaper2020 Ну and the most important if in Т-34 there were Soviet veterans tankmen at Sherman there would be no chances. In general it is very surprising to see in working order .
Vanyaaynav 4 months ago
@Zfk41 Well, in one on one, surely. But WWII was an industrial war and Sherman won the war because they were more easily repleacable and repairable. The were faster than the Tiger, and on snow, were almost silent (For tanks, of course !). The legendary Tiger and Panther had some critical flaw, too heavy and costly (Tiger) and many early flaw and too complexe for rookie crew to handle (For the Panther.)
SkavenVideo 4 months ago
@Zfk41 Yea and Panthers got raped by Fireflies.
xCh34pShOtx 4 months ago
Comment removed
Zfk41 4 months ago
@xCh34pShOtx Sure. Look at the armor and tell me wich tank wins in this category. The 7.5 Kwk 42 was comparable to the 17Pr. , the Kwk was a higher velocity gun (vs. 17Pr.)
The Panther had (moslty) a much better crew, because of their trainig, a better radio and range/targeting equipment. I won't deny that the Firefly could take out the Panther, wich sure happened. It depends on the circumstances, but the Germans still had their advantage.
Zfk41 4 months ago 10
@Zfk41
Doesnt matter if the firefly gun is "Stronger" the 75mm on the panther could still take out every american tank in ww2 lol..
1ownjoo2 3 months ago
@Zfk41 I agree that the training and equipment were better at the beginning of the war but by the end they had only conscripts and whatever meager supplies they could scrape together. Hitler had better stuff, so he was overconfident and over-extended himself to the extreme. The difference was we KNEW we could continue to produce the Sherman at a steady pace, and that it was a reliable, well-built tank, if underpowered. Hitler's resources were running out.
geeknproud321 3 months ago
@geeknproud321 Exactly. However, let's Sherman was never underpowered. It was just lacking in modifications. The T-34 was the tank that could never be upgunned after the war.
Tyco200 2 months ago
@geeknproud321 T-34s only were upgunned to 85 variants. This worsened both transmission/weight of the tank. Sherman had 105mms given in Israel. ;D!
Tyco200 2 months ago
@Tyco200 I think it was a 102mm French Naval gun actually. I do agree that you could upgrade the crap out of them though. The Super Shermans put together in Israel were entirely retrofitted with modern electronics suites, better guns, and modern reactive armor much like the M48/M60 Patton. They could have easily taken any tank produced during the world war and were actually used successfully against much more modern tanks like the T-55 and T-62 during Yom Kippur and the 6 Days War.
geeknproud321 2 months ago
@Tyco200 It does stand to be said that the Israelis are excellently trained professional soldiers. When the Super Sherman did see combat it was against massed formations charging wildly using conscripts with no training at all. Their opponents didn't even know how to properly aim a rifle let alone operate a tank. This isn't a shot against Muslims but extremists. They literally believe that their strength of will and indoctrination is better training than professional military schooling.
geeknproud321 2 months ago
@Zfk41 And still lost...
kumasan727 2 months ago
The Panther was a POS. After 150 miles a Sherman needed gas, a Panther needed a new final drive.
johnsonsa 1 month ago