Why Tankers preferred 75 over 76mm
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2019
- Although the Sherman with 76mm gun was clearly a better at fighting other tanks, most tankers actually preferred the 75mm gun Sherman. Yet, why? This question is answered by Joshua "Wiki" Collins from ww2armor.org who provides some interesting insights while we stand in front of "Fred".
Disclaimer: This video was made possible by Wargaming, who flew me over to Ohio, provided food, lodging and additional services.
WW2ARMOR: ww2armor.org/
WW2ARMOR facebook: / ww2armor
D-Day Ohio: www.ddayohio.us/
Great Tank Destruction Myth Video: • ⚜ | The Great Tank Des...
»» GET OUR BOOK ««
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com/
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
» patreon - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» Book Wishlist www.amazon.de/gp/registry/wis...
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
Coox, Alvin D.; Naisawald, L. Van Loan: Technical Memorandum ORO-T-117 - Survey of Allied Tank Casualties in World War II, March 1951
TM 9-1907 Ballistic Data Performance of Ammunition. Department of the Army, United States 1948
Zaloga, Steven: Patton versus the Panzers: The Battle of Arracourt, September 1944. Stackpole Books: 2016.
#Sherman #WW2 #75vs76
The T-Shirt in the video was a limited time offer, for my regular T-Shirts check out this store: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized
Be sure to check out WW2Armor here: czcams.com/channels/hM-wYAFsZU2MGCRR30N7Rg.html
here: ww2armor.org/
and here: facebook.com/ww2armor/
Military History not Visualized Maybe you can playthe new stell division
Just a question: Were there problems with 76mm AP shells that prevented them from penetrating the front armor of tiger tanks at ranges between 50 to arround 900 yards. I recall something like this, due to the near perfect brinell durity of the tiger armor (arround 130).
@Zenus Pridgen that is not what I was talking about. Apparently the first batches of 76mm AP were too soft to penetrate the armor of the Tiger tanks.
Military History not Visualized nice job Bernard! Great seeing you in Conneaut! Can’t wait to see you again whenever that will be! Never stop the great work! Auf Wiedersein! -The Tank Commander
Yeah sure, and the T34 was the 2nd-best tank of the war, the sherman the best and 3rd is the churchill.
Why they were the best tanks, because they won the war.
And than people wonder why there are all these -aboo´s...
Because we hear so much experts these days, but their "information" often doesn´t fit together, or they interpret documents and reports totally different.
All original sherman personal I heard (recorded) said, that the sherman was a deathtrap and not compareable to german tanks.
czcams.com/video/Bj0AzL95Weg/video.html
You and some others argue, the sherman is better, because they were produced, supported and recovered much more than german tanks.
Production is production, tank performance is tank performance imo.
Well it's because you have a whole 1mm less to load
lol
Slower round.
@WerstInternetUser wrong you get 150 mm pen and more explosive inside
@@tonyromano6220 I think it's the same
dee burgos 75mm is lower velocity.
105mm thicc boi
Matsimus! I love your channel
@@monikah.g1918 its the only sherman that can reliably take a frrontal hit from a pz4 f2 long 75mm in wathunder
@@Capodecamper that damn thing is practically invincible from the front, short of a tank destroyer or atgm.
The gun sucks
Ah yes the howitzer
So, the guys with the 76s are the first ones sent against the tigers..... I’ll take a 75 please!
The German Infantry were the eyes and ears of the German Tigers, take them out with HE and they're deaf and blind.
SvenTviking Front armor glacis, no.
But the Turret, yes but the M3 75mm must hit the flat side of the turret face and trapshooting happens on rare occasions.
Also, Panthers were also blind, as demonstrated in Arracourt, they were fighting against Sherman Tanks without Infantry while the Shermans fought the Panthers without Infantry and won. Despite it was said that the Panthers were manned by crews who have a mix of veterans and freshly trained members. They were sitting inside a Tank was supposed to be superior to the Sherman.
At the Battle of the Bulge, this time is where the German Tanks are going into battle with Infantry support.
I'd want the 75 or 105 because it would be more effective against threats I might actually face. Tigers and Panthers were so rare their biggest effect on the war was psychological not their actual combat effectiveness. The real threats were more likely to be the enemy infantry or anti tank guns.
Chris Jones Yes, this is why. The real reason why the Big Cats were so feared due to it's size and it's powerful guns but only veterans who have encountered those Tanks before in combat might have been going through North Africa and Italy.
John Cornell Well, it was different.
The Panthers are on the offensive on Arracourt against the Defensive American Shermans. The Panthers were fighting against Shermans without Infantry Support while the on the American side, they have at least few recon teams saw and only reported of German Armor activities on certain areas.
It's not the American Aircraft that spotted the Panthers for them due to that because it was foggy and cloudy during the Battle. The real key part of this battle was the Infantry doing reconnaissance, the Air Attacks came later on after the Sherman's engaged the Panthers.
Now that's going aside, from what you've mentioned is the Battle in the Hürtgen Forest, Puffendorf takes at the same place, the German have a home field advantage here on the defensive, using their environmental terrains that hindered the Sherman's mobility, actually, the German Tanks also suffered the same like any other Tanks while fighting in the forest, this time is where the German PanzerJeagers, the Anti-Tank Infantry took their roles to take out American Armor by deploying mines, anti-Tank Ditches and Towed Anti-Tank Guns to prevent them from advancing.
The defensive strategy of the Germans in Hürtgen Forest is to block paths with their armored vehicles while the infantry will take them out from the flanks by using Towed guns.
The American guy is incredibly knowledgeable. He should have his own CZcams channel.
Thank you for your kind words!
I'm guessing that's the origin of his nickname.
@@joshuacollins5860 You should consider making youtube videoes with voice recordings and some pictures in the background sharing your knollege on the Sherman or other topics. People really enjoy that. Two channels that comes to mind that does that really well is Drachinifel and Greg. They talk about naval and aircraft history respectively
Fascinating information, and you guys work together very well. Maybe you can reenact this video some time.
Agree 100%
The reason they prefer 75mm
Low BR
Poland, China, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Yugoslavia and Greece wished they had a lot of Sherman Fireflies at the start of WW2
The German Blitzkrieg, Japanese Banzai Charge and Italian Blind Marches would have been stopped dead in their tracks
Christian Dauz What would a 17 pdr do to a bonzai charge
@@Vibakari
Shred them? Send shrapnel everywhere? Blow up and inflict blunt force trauma?
And the Sherman Firefly tank has machineguns
Provide cover and act as a distraction to allow Chinese infantry to aim and fire at the Banzai infantry, killing a lot of them!
Banzai charges only worked on the Chinese due to low morale and not enough weapons. The Japanese failed miserably trying the charges against America
With plenty of Sherman Firefly tanks the Chinese destroy Japanese infantry, inferior and few in number J-tanks and the weak artillery
Japanese Airforce lose several airports
Christian Dauz No i mean what does the 17 pounder do better than the normal 75 against infantry. Why a firefly specifically? And if it was because of the machine gun a stuart or a m3 lee would have been just as good.
High Explosive (HE)
The HE shells for the 17-pounder had smaller bursting charges (Mk 1: 1.28 lbs, Mk 2: 1.06 lbs)[9][10] than those for the 75mm gun used by the Sherman (M48: 1.47 lbs, Mk 1: 1.64 lbs)
wiki
@@Vibakari
Not much of a difference against Japanese infantry. The bigger gun is more useful against Japanese tanks and fortifications
Poland would have grinded the German Army to bits if they had Sherman Fireflies!
You're just confusing us. Just like the Chieftain, this guy is using facts and rational analysis to give an accurate insight on the matter. But you completely ignore how we feeeeeeeeeeeelll!
I agree.
I appreciate someone who fought in a Sherman. I understand they all didn't fight Tigers, but the Sherman had trash armor.
@@joemoment-o1275 Wow a tank that had to go across an ocean and get loaded and unloaded on cranes doesn't have the best armor? Thank you for this enlightening news to all ous us...
@@joemoment-o1275 "Sherman had trash armor." You do realize the Sherman had ~75-85mm of effective frontal armor right? Compared to the Tiger's 100? If you want a medium tank with trash armor look at the Pz IV
@@sirosky9606 Pz 4 had an ok armor. In the initial invasions.
'He who shows up with tanks will win'
- Tank guy
Unless the battle is in a swamp.
@@lwilton Or a city.Like Grozny.
Combined arms team still beats an infantry force in cities.
@@DeathWishMonkey Yep, if you all link arms & charge at the Enemy, they are instantly rendered helpless 😊
I guess now its ''whoever shows up with jets, ICBM's and drones will win''
In the original Company of Heroes RTS game, there is an option to upgrade all your M4 Sherman tanks with the 76mm gun, and the upgrade description warns you that upgrading the guns to the 76mm version increases de damage done to vehicles, specially tanks, but reduced the splash radius of the shell, thus reducing the damage vs infantry and buildings. Historical accuracy in a video game boys!!! I love Company of Heroes soo much
Yeah, that was actually dope and it made the Sherman highly versatile...
CoH is one of those games that actually pay attention to historical detail.
Like how the Flamethrowers deal EXTRA damage to enemies in cover, but less damage to enemies in the open because the flames can heat up the confined spaces better (and it's easier to set fire to a bunker than a field).
I hate though that it was a universal upgrade. I would have prefered if it was tank to tank making your tanks more different and unique.
amen
So the 76,2 HE shell would have a smaller blast radius than the 75 HE shell?
Odd.
Shorthand: The targets that tanks fought the most were infantry and notably anti tank guns, both needing HE to take out effectively. The high pressure of the 76 caused by the longer barrel and larger caliber meant the explosive element in HE shells and APCBC shells required sacrificing explosive mass in favor of thicker coating to survive being fired. This lead to the 75 having almost twice the amount of HE that the 76 had, making it more effective for most combat situations.
Good summary.
Well put, you said in a couple paragraphs what he tried to say for the entire vid
The higher velocity would also spread the shrapnel out in a narrower but longer swath of destruction rather than a wider area on impact.
In short even shorter, the 76mm was built as to use against armor, infantry support and against other softer targets are secondary. 75mm is a multipurpose gun that's great against a multitude of soft targets and on the Western front, where German armor became rarer and rarer, it was preferred over the 76mm.
A ratio of one 76-mm gun Sherman to three 75-mm gun Shermans was the preferred strength. One of the reasons that "Fury either gets it wrong, or at least the Tiger crew that takes on the platoon is inept (also operating entirely by ITSELF, completely vulnerable to some Hitlerjugend carrying panzerfausts, did they learn nothing from earlier seeing their late platoon commander get barbecued when "Machine" hesitated, momentarily, to fire upon the kids that were stalking the platoon from the brush?) as it opens fire upon the REAR tank, instead of the LEAD vehicle, which is "WarDaddy's", having the 76, which would have been the FIRST one to go if the Tiger crew knew what they were doing! The questionable tactics of the Tiger commander tell us that they thought "National Socialist Ardor" was a good substitute for training and experience, and it was good enough to get THREE Shermans, but they needed to get FOUR.
I have had the honor to speak with many veterans of WW2. Those who served in armored vehicles told me that duels between tanks were rare. When German tanks were encountered the artillery was called in to deal with the problem. If that did not work, then air strikes were called in. Much depended on the experience and temperament of the officers. Those who cared about their men tried to use stand off weapons to weaken or clear a German position before sending in tanks and infantry. German tanks ran out of fuel or broke down as often as they were knocked out in combat.
German logistics were severely hampered by allied air power. The veterans who served in Shermans seemed to like their tanks. They commented about their reliability and speed. All tanks, German wonder weapons included, burn when hit in the proper weak spot. While largely forgotten in these discussions were the tank destroyers. Again they were fast and effective. They hid until they could find a target,fired and left. They were like snipers in their techniques. They,like Sherman and other armored vehicles more often crushed machine gun nests and antitank guns. The idea of tank to tank duels was considered to be foolishly dangerous.
I think it would be German wonder weapons especially since most had a severely underpowered engine which would break down often. You wouldn't even have to shoot it in the weak spot just wait till it overstresses it's engine and catches fire
Zealous Doggo that pretty much sums up the situation as I understand it
Which is great until some crazed German leader launches the Battle of The Bulge and you have to fight. Then you want every 76mm and 90mm you can get your hands on.
Or the Italian penisula which was held up by less than 15 tigers. Immune to 75mm fire.
Fiasco3 yet they lost....
My father told me that when they encountered a tank they called in artillery even if you didn't kill the tank you removed all there support troops so the tank was left on its own and left as fast as possible
Was he in a light tank?
Depends on if artillery was available.
@@nastypiglosi1788 Americans believed in combined arms, it was mostly available
@@nastypiglosi1788 We had the best artillery of the war. We really perfected an idea invented by the British in 1941: the time on target coordination of artillery fire. We were the richest nation fighting the war, and we were the most abundantly supplied with artillery and shells, and then we perfected this method for ensuring all the artillery pieces in range of a given target would time their fire so that all the shells, from all the different guns would arrive over the target and burst their shells at the same instant.
Ive read in the past that the germans actually despised us because we over used artillary. We used artillery for everything. It wasnt just a this or that encounter, it was literally everything. Constipated, get the artillery, mosquitos, get the artillery.
The Sherman was clearly the best overall tank of the war and it gets such a bad wrap because it sometimes faced heavy tanks made strictly to destroy tanks. The Sherman was perfect for, mass production, transport overseas, reliability, easy maintenance, excellent infantry support, and all the various uses the hull was utilized for. Thank you for keeping it real.
German tanks were over engineered just like their cars. They are overly complicated and required meticulous maintenance. For that reason many German tanks simply broke down and were not repairable in the field and were abandoned. German tanks were slow, heavy, and too large for a lot of bridges and to transverse fields of mud. As the war went on using slave labour and due to Allied air strikes, the quality fell off and many tanks were not fully operable and reliable. The Royal Tiger had a great legend but only 500 were ever made. The Allies built over 49,000 Sherman tanks in WW2. They were light, fast, used gasoline like the other vehicles, dependable, easily fixable by the tank crew, highly maneuverable, and had a higher turret turn rate. A good Sherman tank commander could out maneuver his counterpart because of their slow turret turn rate. Have you ever seen a swarm of ants attack a bigger, stronger, more formidable insect? Same principle. Its a war of attrition. As well, the defender always has the choice of where, and when it will defend. Camouflage, high ground, and easily defensible positions are a huge advantage against assaulting forces advancing in the open.
@@burningblue1254 And Sherman's had one of the lowest casualty rates of the war.
Sherman suffered from one fatal flaw - late entry of US to the war which left it lagging behind in firepower... the platform itself was easily the best of the whole war - reliable, fast, easily mass producible but without flaws that plagued the russian T-34 (cramped interior, poor manufacturing quality and next to useless armor) but they shipped the tanks configured to fight +- 1941 war in 1944 ...
although if we could disregard the number of machines deployed the best machine of the war would probably go to the Pershing / Superpershing, that thing was an absolute monster for being fielded in 1945 ...
@@Asghaad The Chieftain tank guy has great information on just this topic. Check one of his talks out: czcams.com/video/TwIlrAosYiM/video.html
After my grandfather passed away, I found some audio from an interview with a university, he had partaken in. Its approximately 120 minutes in duration. He was a 2nd Lieutenant 12th Canadian Armoured Regt. he spoke a bit about some incidents where bouncing HEAT rounds really changed a few situations for the better, and how the troopers he commanded were using that tactic quite frequently, and became good at utilizing the technique. Personally I learned when I was about 10-13 years old that, if I learned something about his brigade, from a book and mentioned it to him, it would ruin his day, his week, or even months, so I stopped discussing that period with him. I spent a lot of time with him luckily, because my mother was single, he was like a father to me, I remember waking him up during a thunderstorm because he was having a nightmare, he threw me across the room and landed on top of me with his hands on my throat. I still have all the things he brought back with him, including the shrapnel they took out of him in 1991. He was blown out of two of these and a field ambulance, and survived somehow. Both his brothers were killed in action, and he was the youngest.
Great story. Have you considered publishing the audio online?
@@justonemori The audio was found online and was part of a Canada wide project done through Universities. I knew of the project and that my grandfather had taken part in the project. I remember the time period when the project came to his house, I was approximately 10 - 12 years old, so this was roughly 30 years earlier. The man who did the interviewing truly gathered an amazing, large collection of recollections from veterans, whom many would be deceased within the next decade. The files are available, the project is 'My Army Recollections : Canadian Military Oral History' from the University of Victoria/UVic.
Well, this is a good reminder that armies usually use weapons against the enemies they fight the most often, and since no weapon is perfect, this results in deficiencies in certain aspects. Given that war is no longer about duels, the direct comparison of tank to tank is not necessarily as meaningful as it might appear initially.
Aka reality. Jets and tanks dont win battles let alone wars. They can inpact them but reality cant be reduced to simply armor or air superiority. Not to mention battles are not wars. People are just too stupid to comprehend that. They sinply latch on to best aircraft or tank.
@Scott Joseph Shermans also went across the Pacific. They were designed to be very robust, which meant less additions to armor and armament (though it wasn't necessarily that bad in those regards). Everyone designs things they think will be the best for them.
By that logic, the following must be true, too:
1. Panzerfaust is not much worse than PanzersChreck, if at all.
2. Volkssturm was issued lots of 'Fausts.
therefore
3. Volkssturm would counter all armored assaults???
4. ???
5. Profit?
@Scott Joseph Weren't some US Shermans upgunned latter? As mentioned in this video some were mounted with 76mm guns with higher muzzle velocity. There are also quite a few Sherman iterations.
@@boycotgugle3040 Volkssturm did counter several hastily mounted tank assaults in 1945. that's why Soviet tank armies changed their doctrine in 1945 to let the infantry go first with a huge support from SU76 et SU122 + every artillery that can go on road (thanks Studebaker), despite the crippling infantry shortages Soviet army knew from 1942 on.
So your logic is OK, but Soviet army adapted and overcame this. Plus their superior operational doctrine of operating in depth instead of trying to make prussian encirclement battles meant that they were punching through at best hastily laid defenses, that helps a lot.
Statistically speaking, the first tiger or panther that specific sherman saw were in MHV's shirt in that interview
TL;DW:
The 76 was better vs heavy armor, but you rarely actually met and fought heavy armor in a tank.
The 75 however was better in all around performance, particular against infantery, fortifications, AT guns, etc. - stuff you met and fought a lot.
Yep. Well done. that's exactly what the video says.
@@jamesschofield6452 That is what "To long, didn't watch" texts are there for :)
The 76.2 would also be better against medium armor. And if those things were so rare, then why did the USA build so many unversatile tank destroyers?
Clearly the 75mm was overproduced relative to the 76.2 Sherman.
@@anonymousturtle8562 You can have a lot of tanks, and they are *still* only a rare sight compared to a guy with a gun. Or a gun with some guys.
These were wars with *Millions* of soldiers on each side. The red army clocked in at literally 12 Million. A tank count in the 10k's range is a rare thing compared to that.
@@christopherg2347 Pretty sure that if you pitted a battalion of American infantry with rifles and nothing heavier than bazookas, vs a battalion of German infantry with a Panther at eg the Bulge; the Americans would all end up dead, wounded, captured or routed within days, with light casualties to the Germans.
what do you mean this isn't visualized? there's a friggen sherman in the background.
No there wasn't. You imagined it. 😉
Wdym this is visualized? This is a podcast
I call Covfefe, its not really there. The tank disappers when I put my "tinfoil hat on"
John Smith he has another channel call military history visualized. Where he does animations. This is not animated. There fore not visualized. Play on words. Not that you can’t see what he’s talking about
@@baron1c I know i'm a subscriber. this was a joke.
A British Tanker in a book he wrote said if you threw 75mm HE shells at the Tigers & Panthers
as fast as you could, the concussion of the explosions would knock their sights out of alighnment leaving them little choice but to leave the battle . Five or six Shermans throwing HE
at one Tiger as fast as they could would do that I think
That was some good information. I have never heard such a good explanation about why the 75mm was so much more common in the Sherman.
Hey Greg, thanks for dropping bye!
@david Paul 76mm already existed? I mean, if you increase performance of 75mm to match 76mm, you will also give it same limitations as 76mm, so what's the point?
Great video! If anyone wants to take a closer look at the statistics about the distribution of targets without visiting an archive, they are quoted in Steven Zalogas "Armoured Champion", along with statistics about the distribution of ammunition types. Thank you, Joshua Collins, for presenting these things so succinctly and thanks Bernhard for spreading it.
Loved and linked to a close buddy who's an ex-M60 crewman . . . AND a lifelong armor enthusiast . . . as am I (an enthusiast).
Good job, to have him bring up the numbers for amount of shrapnel in a burst radius; it illustrates why the tank crews preferred the 75mm gun as they did. I have learned that the armor crews I have met are pretty serious about what they do; the possibility of suddenly being shredded can make a soldier pay attention to the details that some others may pass over.
In a recent video, the Chieftain said that the Tiger I was misused. He mentioned that the original specs were for a "Breakthrough tank"(and used the word "Durchburch"). So, if they were trading fire with a few Shermans, they were not being utilized properly - no matter how many Shermans they turned inside-out.
So, as you see, keeping to the facts is the most satisfying way to know about military history. There's no easy way to get exposed to that knowledge, though. And when you do, and it fits the rest of the history you know, it's quite satisfying; it "feels" right. After that, to read the comments section will make you feel like not commenting, mostly.
Good to see you mixing with other historians and re-enactors. These videos make history come to life, and since the data sticks in your memory better, it's a valuable teaching tool. I hope that you keep up your good work, and that your little empire keeps going well.
Breakthrough-making tank used as Breakthrough-plugging tank.
The chieftain give a great presentation debunking Sherman myths basically saying not all German tanks were Panzer or tigers.
Nice video with an interesting take on this subject. Danke.
I was at that d day Ohio! I saw u interviewing that guy!
Amazing interview. Incredible amount of knowledge.
I'm so glad you did this shortly after your StuG video. I still think that, while the long 75mm was the perfect gun for the StuG as the war turned out in both the east and west, the M4 with the 105mm gun was what von Manstein would have dreamed of in that role. The irony is that the US Army was almost alone in not having a designated infantry support tank, yet they created the best AFV for the role.
105 StuG with an effective HEAT round would be a nasty piece of kit
@@CorePathway stuh 42
Yup, my dad was a tanker and lost a leg in the hedge row fighting for St Lo, France. It was his 3rd tank.
I think the main issue is as always the "paper soldier" syndrome: on paper a 75mm cannot pierce 100 mm of steel (at 1000m), but in reality you have to deal with unforeseeable variables. Here's an interesting story: Italian troops in Russia had EP rounds (Effetto Pronto - "Ready Effect" HEAT rounds acting as HESH) that on paper would have worked on T-34 frontal armor, while in reality it was garbage and the troops nicknamed it "Effetto Pernacchia" (Razz Effect).
Interestingly this brings mind to a story told about the 381mm mod. 1934 naval gun on the Littorio and Vittorio Veneto. From Navweaps:
"The Model 1934 was extremely accurate and was able to deliver very consistent and predictable patterns with devastating hitting power - with the ammunition used for trials. Unfortunately, the materials and supply process in Italy works differently than it does in most other countries. In the U.S., for example, if one wished to test a sample of 16" shells, they might pull an example from stock, and inspect it directly. In Italy, the firm producing the equipment would have the advantage of providing the item for test, thereby possibly delivering an example which would be of atypically good quality with respect to serialized units. This was the problem with the Model 1934 - the firms producing the ammunition did not all produce projectiles of proper quality. [Admiral Angelo] Iachino complained about this in post-war books. Some actions showed a run of good projectiles, where others were plagued by terribly bad examples. Possibly the greatest contrast was seen between the shooting of Littorio in the first battle of Sirte Gulf and that of Vittorio Veneto in the 28 March Guado encounter. Despite the fact that Littorio was shooting at targets 32,000 yards away while Veneto was attacking at first Orion and afterwards Gloucester at only 24,000 yards, the Littorio's shot groups were significantly more consistent, despite the greater range, doubtlessly owing to a batch of properly fabricated 381-mm projectiles."
Maurizio Di Sciullo
I wonder if this points to a more general problem in Italian war industries at the time. When inadequate manufacturing procedures are allowed to continue uncorrected, it would provide engineers with an incorrect image of what quality was "good enough" while still being fast enough to produce. Sub-standard consumables make for an awful lot of "garbage" that takes up valuable space on logistics trains . One can also quite imagine that soldiers would lose faith very quickly if a weapon gets a reputation for "not always doing as advertised". Complex warheads that requires very careful machining would probably be especially at risk.
@@SvenTviking The HESH causes mass fragmentation without penetration
Thanks for the correction dude below me
Snagabott m
@@Spade_1917 actually you have it backwards. HEAT works on a shaped charge that forms an explosive jet. HESH squashes out, then detonates causing spalling on the inside of the armor plating.
@@DIVeltro You're right, whoops
What a channel!! why had it taken me 10 years to find this! Great work man
Best video you have done!! Thank you for the great videos.
Informative as always, I can always learn something new from the new sources you look at and interview.
Because all the german tanks went for a vacation to russia
The t34 and IS are more of a challenge than the puny shermans.
Descartes 323 Well not really
@Descartes 323 The oftentimes poor crew training and tactics used by the Soviets resulted in heavy losses though. Also they weren’t designed to last all that long.
not at all, in fact, in the preparation for d day the germans had more tanks in western front than in east, it took some months to east have more tanks again.
...and stayed in Russia...
Great interview. I hope you can do more with this chap!
Joshua Collins is a great resource. Thanks. You've got a new subscriber here.
People forget most infantry battalions have a ton of towed anti-tank guns..so it wasn't a good time to be a tanker back then.
I'm thinking that guy learned so much about WW2 that he just woke up one morning and his pajamas had turned into a uniform.
.
.
_Looks in the mirror:_ "Cool".
He actually owns a time machine his friends built for him. Danny Dyson being one of them.
he is a mess
Twirlyhead
I would have loved that.
Waking up one morning and finding myself dressed in a complete WW2 gear. :-3
@@Briselance hit up your local Army recruiter and you can put on one a little similar.
@@josepherogers4929 and as a 19K it will only take him a couple years to be a real Sergeant.
Great video. Loved the discussion.
Great video, I love learning new things and your channel has always been one of the best as far as teaching me new things.
TLDR: it made more sense to use 75's every day and keep the M10's and M36's as quick reactionary force when heavy armor was spotted.
I've heard accounts that the 75mm also had a very good phosphorus shell, which was handy because it could be fired quickly without to much aiming, and slapping a target anywhere would make it hard to see, wreck optics, and because it stuck to the target, you could tell where it was if it went behind a hedge....
I was just thinking but if WP shell could get ignited with fire, wouldn't it be effective shooting a smoke shell at an enemy tank then continue with an HE?
Because smoke shell have the ability to smoke the inside of a tank through the ventilation, it would be fatal is the smoke suddenly catches on fire.
Yeah I can't believe the US Army gets away with WP.
Its really a chemical weapon, good for smoking a tank with or a building.
@@johnneill990 Get away with it? Who's gonna do anything about it? The use of it as an incendiary or to mark or create a smokescreen is not against any of the oxymoron "laws of war" that the US signed and this can be found quite easily. It is only banned if you use the toxic properties to do harm, and they aren't the only ones that use it. Though there are tons of loopholes to things like that anyway. Stop being naive.
@@johnneill990It was used to set the interiors of buildings and bunkers on fire. A hit on a tank would send the WP into the engine and crew compartments thru the ventilation and cooling fans plus set the road wheel rubber on fire.
Thank you for your excellent videos!
Very interesting and informative discussion; many thanks for the effort!
@ Military History not Visualized, Most interesting and informative video. It is also worth remembering that in Normandy, about 3/4 of the German Panzers were facing the British and Canadian forces, that did have the 17pd Firefly.
Thank you for a very informative video. It's amazing how many "facts" there are circulating about WW2 tanks that have been proven to be untrue but continue to be propagated by people with little or no experience or real knowledge on the subject.
awesome video. Great stuff from both of you. Cheers
Excellent discussion between two subject matter experts. This was great !
People really get mad at each other over a millimeter.
Use Joshua for more topics like this in the future :)
This is a very good interview with great statistics backed with good facts. Thx
A very useful and informative breakdown of how things were. Update appreciated - thanks!
One comment needs some more context in terms of fighter-bombers. The Allied fighter-bombers were extremely effective at knocking out German supply trains and motorized columns. The Allied medium bombers attacked railroad marshalling yards and bridges in the daylight with good accuracy. These bridges getting knocked out hampered daylight movement of motorized supply colimns or armored vehicle columns. The fighter-bombers destroyed tens of thousands of German vehicles, trucks, and railroad locomotives. The ability of the Germans to move reinforcements, reserves or supplies down the roadways and railways became virtually impossible as the Normandy campaign progressed.
The Germans lost the Normandy campaign in large part due to logistical breakdown. The German attrition of Wehrmacht divisions caused by Allied artillery, tank and infantry attacks couldn't be replaced while the Allies could replace their casualties. So the brutal arithmetic of war for Germanyin 1944 Normandy was mostly one of SUBTRACTION. The fighter-bombers and medium bombers severely impaired German logistical and transport capability. About forty percent of German tanks were broken down. These German tanks were abandoned on the battlefield due to lack of spare parts, fuel, ammunition or the impossibility of trying to get over smashed bridges and roadways. The fighter-bombers stopped lots of German armor without ever destroying them. A tank without fuel, ammo, spare parts and a clear supply path for technical support quickly becames useless scrap metal. Logistics isn't everything but it is darn close to being the most important battlefield factor that determines whether an army can hold its ground, gain ground or is defeated.
The 76mm shell was pretty good at knocking out a Tiger tank or a Panther, especially from the side. But as the one guy dressed as a soldier said, 80 percent of the time Sherman tanks were shooting at German infantry, pillboxes, machine guns positions, bunkers, trenches, mortars, antitank guns and other similar targets. The 75mm high explosive was SUPERIOR and much more effective than the 76mm high explosive shell on infantry and fortification type targets.The 105 mm Sherman was good but it was very important to have brigades or at least battalions of Sherman 75mm tanks with 76mm tank destroyers attached to every infantry division.
Just subscribed to WW2Armor. They deserve the support
Thanks! Plans for more content are in the works!
Fantastic video! Very informative!
Great episode buddy!
Fun fact: there were less than 500 Tiger I tanks in the entire Western Front.
@Tom Sanders As compared to 8000+ Panzer IVs, which were much more likely to be encountered and could easily be handled with the 75.
@@HowlingWolf518 The germans developed too many types of tanks and barely even had their factories readily support them. Unlike americans, the Germans thought producing 10 wonder weapons would be a good defence against 50 other tanks.
When they trained tank crews that had been assigned Shermans with 75mm guns on the new M26 Pershing, there was such a difference in accuracy with the new 90mm gun that they said that they could now aim where they wanted to actually hit an enemy tank instead of just worrying about hitting it at all. This is in my Pershing: A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series Book by R. P. Hunnicutt.
Imagine how they would feel about the M1. From what iv read, the velocity increased alot, to the point its basically point and click.
@@honkhonk8009 Far more important than the velocity is the targeting computer. It calculates all of the factors needed to hit the target thirty times a second, so it really is point and click, no matter the conditions.
Very informative talk, thanks for this.
Excellent interview...
The M2/M/3 and M6 had a muzzle velocity of 2031 fps, the 76.2 M1 gun had a muzzle velocity of 2600 fps, a significant increase. However, I wouldn’t call the 75mm a low velocity gun. The 75 mm L/40 gun with the M61 or M72 AP projectile would reliably penetrate the side armor of a Panther at over 2000 yards and the frontal armor at 250 yards. It would pen the front armor of a tiger 1 at 100 yards (square on) 50% of the time. Not great but WTH it’s a Tiger.
I don't have a massive interest in the history of tank warfare, I just enjoy listening to people that know what they're talking about, on whatever subject.
Learning anything is good, all the small bits of knowledge come together to give you more insight in other fields. Eg. Tank warfare can teach you about human psychology and physics.
It's a nice change on here instead of people making shit up and then whining about it.
People also tend to forget that infantry units often went ahead of armored divisions to secure towns and hunt down stationary or hidden panzers, tigers, panthers and at guns preparing to ambush. They were often equipped with tools like bazooka's, the rare recoiless rifles, satchel charges, infantry-made sticky bombs, and at rifles. They mostly just used the shermans to knock out mg nests and the like. Most of their enemies at the time were the common panzer 3 and panzer 4. king tigers were rarely encountered by allied tanks and most were destroyed by allied planes
What a fascinating discussion. Thank you.
Correct answer: They did not have enough gold.
The Sherman gets a lot of flak but it was one of the most survivable tanks, crew wise , in WW2.
Yep
So 'Ronson' nickname by GI, pity form German Panzer crews and Soviet request to fit in diesels were propaganda, huh? Sherman wasn't bad, just unremarkable - had one advantage though: massive support system in way of US industry, USAAF, artillery and infantry.
@@piotrd.4850 Ronson myth has been disproven before. The term was coined after 1950, and was not a documented term or name for the M4. Though "Tommy Cooker" is one term made to the M4, though it is said by both Germans and British to British Tanks in the desert.
Thank you For giving us more ideas to think about . Gosh Josh that is a neat Tank , I am going to look for your channel .
Great video, worthwhile information.
Never really seen a WWII tank up close. I always imagined them to be a lot smaller but that thing behind you might as well be a building.
You think that is big, you should see a Panther. The American M60 and the German Panther are the tallest tanks around.
Well, some of the tanks of the Second World War are pretty tiny, like the early war stuff. The French Renault and Hotchkiss tanks for instance, or the Italian L3/33. The latter is practically a go-kart.
Dutchland : If you think the Sherman is big, wait until you get to see an Abrams.
I had the opposite experience when I first saw a T-70 in person. That thing's really wide and low.
The camera angle makes it look bigger than it is. There is a Sherman in a park in the town I grew up in that we played on as kids, and even then I didn't think it was enormous.
Every US Tanker ever- “The best job I ever had.”
You are very correct! I do miss it...very hard on your body, and damn hard work, but I wouldn't have done anything else
5 complementary bibles per tank , your are gonna need it
Tell that to the M-3 that had to go up against a Tiger
Excellent content!
Got a new subscriber. Thanks for the VERY interesting video I greatly appreciate this and videos like this. Keep up the great work..oh and again. THANK YOU
I’m curious about how a military command “offers” a gun choice to its tank crews. This is the real phenomenon here, more so than a stated preference for an inferior gun that fires a superior HE shell.
lol yeah you caught on to that too huh? "War Department would like to know what gun you want on your tank." RANDOM E-7 TANK COMMANDER: "Tell the War Department I'd like a 75mm ." lol OK right.... I guess it was a clumsy way to word that Army and Corps level commanders would send reports back stating the preference of one over another.
@@johnroscoe2406 why not make a better 75mm that can take low speed big boom rounds as well as a good high speed ap round?
@@mikeb5063 You miss the entire fucking point. We're not talking about anything like that. We're not talking about how good a gun is at all. Please butt out. Thanks.
@@johnroscoe2406 cry baby much, did i pee in your cornflakes ? whaa whaa whaa
@@mikeb5063 You made yourself look stupid and now you are trying to save face by attacking me. Thus making yourself look even more stupid.
As a tanker I prefer the 120mm smoothbore
Rheinmetall made ofc
Thom Ebbing the 120 is an American designed weapon
We sold the production rights to the Germans
The M2 was the baddest tank of WW2!
i prefer the 122mm ... can use hyper velocity!!!
Great presentation! My father (US) was on an anti-tank crew in North Africa and Italy. 37mm at first, then 57mm. But he was mostly used as regular Infantry.
Thanks for the info "Wiki"! Was nice meeting you on the beach
I was my pleasure, and hopefully, we'll get a chance to meet again soon! Maybe in Canada next time, so I can also hit up a local Tim Hortons for coffee and a donut, eh?
I'm not surprised. Warfare tend to favor the asymmetrical approach.
You don't really want to send tanks to destroy other tanks. The most prefarably option would be to send planes or other aircraft to destroy tanks, since the tanks have no considerable means of shooting back.
A lot of rock, paper scissors going on.
WW2 planes were generally incapable of destroying tanks, short of a miracle. HE bomb needs a direct hit to penetrate armor of any significant thickness, and it was nearly impossible to directly hit such a small target, with an unguided bomb, from a speeding attack plane. Same for unguided rockets.
Stuka dive bombers needed a little less luck, and the 57mm gun on one of the Mosquito models might have been interesting if more of those were made. But in general, the era's planes were useless in attacking tanks (besides hitting their support fueling vehicles; or maybe damaging the tracks on tanks, where a nearby bomb miss might suffice in necessitating repairs.)
@@elljay3453: Yeah, the technology wasn't there yet. But they clearly wanted to be able to engage the tanks with aircraft. And technology certainly moved in that direction overtime.
This reminds me off the fact that during the Cold War, Soviet tanks and armor were loaded up more with HE instead of Anti-armor shells. Upwards of 70-80% HE load out.
With more anti-tank loaded up only when more armor opposition was expected and anticipated.
Irl, HE is a valid anti armor measurement under very specific condition. Most if not all nation tested out viability of anti armor with HE. Notice this statement came with all kind of context attached.
@@jintsuubest9331 HE can be good anti armor shells. In fact the Soviets banked on that too, being good enough to fire power and mission kill advanced MBTs and wreak Leopards 1's and IFVs.
That makes sense. It was clear after the Yom Kippur war of 1973 that tanks faced a serious threat from infantry-operated antitank guided missiles, which were much cheaper, easier to conceal, and more widespread than tanks - and against which solid shot or APDS were pretty much useless.
@@jintsuubest9331 Well, pretty much all context that is needed is that "effective" doesn't mean able to defeat tank armor, just able to knock tank out of combat by messing up parts that can't be realistically armored, like tracks, gun barrel, sighting devices etc. Though, if artillery hits you square on, top armor may not be able to protect you. I recall picture from war in Ukraine, where tank suffered direct hit from Russian artillery, combined kinetic energy of 152mm shell and blunt force of explosive content caused turret roof to cave into a turret.
Very interesting and informative... I never considered this in my assessments and assumptions...Big Thumbs Up...
Very interesting video... learned quite a bit
Hard points be gangsta until a Sherman 105 is called up.
I dunno why but thanks to Brothers in Arms I cant shake off this preconception that the tank is very ideal to be attached to infantry squads since if you protect it, the tank pretty much gets shit done from blasting something you dont want to mobile cover that spews out HE shells accurately than a nade
And the tanks would prefer the infantry kept sneaky people from sticking bombs to the sides and climbing all over all the hatches.
Thats basically the mindset used when they build the shermans. US doctrine supposedly use the shermans as infantry support weapon against enemy emplacement and soft targets. They leave the tank killing business for the tanl destroyers. The problem is, reality often doesnt cooperate with u. Hence u sometimes see shermans being forced up against panthers and tigers.
Descartes 323, once again, support infantry includes killing tanks and Pz.lVs had 50mm of armor so the 75mm can pierce it reliably. Also the gen 3 german tanks were rare with only four confirmed reports of it being a Tiger(Western front, USA).Yes if head to head with a German cat, I choose cat but that usually doesn’t happen as Panthers mostly set up in ambush positions
Americans came to same conclusion after analyzing combat records. Common sense dictates using tanks where tank is strong and infantry struggles, and using infantry where infantry is strong and tanks struggle. But it turns out when you mix both close enough to provide mutual support, they both take significantly lower loses.
The 1951 allied tank report that he's quoting is the exact same one I was talking about when I gave casualty numbers. That's the one I'm talking about. it was on a different video with the chieftain so no one know what I'm talking about, but that's what I'm talkin about.
This video is well presented and the information is actually accurate. Nice.
Excellent Video.
75mm or 76mm by itself does not convey much. Somewhere else is stated that the 75mm was a L40 with 2300fps muzzle velocity. The 76.2mm was L53 with 2800-2900fps and APCR at 3200 fps.
The faster the shell, the more kinetic energy and the greater chance that the shell will hit the aim point. Add that to an APCR round and you can understand why the 76mm was so effective at killing a Tiger at 1300 yards.
The Tank Museum indicated that the majority of enemy tanks were taken out by Self Propelled Guns. That included tank destroyers as well as mobile artillery. It wasn't just that the German tanks suffered technical faults. It was that they took battle damage such as being tracked and were forced to destroy their own vehicles when they lost control of the battlefield.
I suppose if you are shooting at an anti tank gun which were the biggest threat to them, a good high explosive shell is what you actually need most of the time.
@@SvenTviking The wheels of grand strategy logistics turn pretty slowly and they had under 12 months until wars end. Not only that but this stuff was only discovered in studies long after wars end.
@@SvenTviking I'm also sure the gunner wouldn't appreciate having to take into knowledge of the fact that the AP and HE shell would likely both travel in different velocities and trajectories if that were the case.
Did you do a Vlog video of sorts while in Ohio? I would love to see what you thought of the of Ohio and what else you did while you were there. Great video, both of you are very knowledgeable and love his outfit :) Very impressive display of vehicles and firepower!
I don't usually enjoy listening to people talk for long periods of time, but this was nice. Thanks!
My grandfather was in WW2. He severd in 3rd Armored Devison as a Tank commander under Jorge S. Patton. I remember him telling me about his M4 Sherman with the 105 mill. He told me he took down a Panther buy waiting in a dich and firing up into the panthers soft under belly. That Panther had killed all the other M4 Tanks in his group he lost a lot of friends that day but the 105 did good work on heavy armor in WE2.
The 75 had three advantages, per my Dad, 6th Armored Division, E7 and already 5 years in the Army by 1944. 1) Demolition 2) Standard load out in the M4 3) Handling Something my Dad never mentioned, Panthers. He didn't really talk about Panzer III or IV. The only tank my Dad mentioned with some awe in his voice, the King Tiger. He preferred the name Tiger Royal. Dad was part of the team evaluating the various rank designs that led to the M3 and M4 tanks. He told me the crew doing the evaluation preferred the Christie design. He loved the maneuverability and the diesel.
After December 7, 1941 my Dad found himself being posted to stand guard in an M3 on a sandbar in California. Had to be careful out there, it was easy to throw a track. :-)
Dad was originally 2nd Armored Division. Just before Torch, he was detached to for the cadre of the newly created 6th Armored Division.
Certainly sounds like he has/had some stories.
Very insightful 👍
Great video!
I think my favorite part about this is how instead of watching two 50-60+ yr old dudes talking about WW2 stuff it's two young dudes.
Great content as always
75mm, it gets the job done and we can spam shed loads of it.
Oddball would like to know your location.
75mm didn't get the job done, even with the support of 76.2 Shermans. Ergo, the US made lots of tank destroyers which were kind of a crappy thing to use a tank chassis for, excepting only the AT main gun.
@@anonymousturtle8562 and most of them had 75mm's for a long time, and weren't reslly used as TD's like they were supposed to, abd the 75mm literally did get the job done against most targets.
@Carnivorus should've let the soviets die. Filthy commies.
@Carnivorus The US joined the war in Dec 1941, and the Soviets would not have been able to do as much as they did without American supplies, they were using cans of food sent by the US in WW2 in the 70s, the Soviets could not afford to feed or supply their own troops.
The British also in trouble and benefited tremendously from American arms, planes, destroyers, and other supplies.
The US even sent them trains and train cars, they were pulling artillery with horse until they got American trucks.
Learn history and think before you type.
Great Video. I learned alot
Very interesting thanks for this
Bernhard you should let that guy know that he should start a youtune channel because he speaks very well and knows a lot about this stuff.
I think I actually hint at that in the interview and did clearly so off-camera.
The fact is tanks rarely faced each other on the Western Front in WWII. The greatest destroyer of tanks were anti tank guns (Panzerfaust, Bazooka, Tank destroyer, etc)
This was very good info.
Great vid!