M4 Sherman in Red Army Service during World War 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 09. 2024
- Today we take a look at one of the most iconic tanks in history and it's service in Red Army of Soviet Union during World War 2
Some sources:
tankarchives.bl...
iremember.ru/e...
www.amazon.com...
Patreon: / redeffect
I no longer own the discord server. There is another one I made for Patreon supporters, if you want you can check it out.
About rubbered tracks:
Soviets sometimes used m4s for night assaults because rubbered tracks made much less noise.
They drove toward enemy positions as close as possible, then turned on speakers with alarm, lights and charged the trenches, rolling over artillery and personnel.
But that rubber wear off really fast during marches.
Source : Лоза Дмитрий Фёдорович. Танкист на "иномарке"
"Commanding the Red Army's Sherman Tanks"
The engines also made them quieter. The M4s the Red Army received were equipped with 2 diesel engines. If they wanted to be quieter, they could run them on only one engine, which reduced its noise.
From personal experiece I can tell you that you can't sneak up on troops with any WWII tank, even a Sherman with rubber tread blocks! The engine noise, combined with the clanking and creaking of the treads, drive sprocket and idler wheels makes for a loud vehicle. In Germany in 1970 walking near a platoon of M60s idling you had to shout to be heard.
@@johnulrich5572 Well imagine there is a heavy rain or something, or at least this definition of sneaky is actually to a farther distance than we normally consider. Since by comparison you probably can tell the noise of a Tiger on a clear day at almost a kilometer...
@@johnulrich5572 well the guy who quoted that was comparing that with russian tanks which were nutoriously noisy as in if a t34 on the move you can hear it a mile away, and what your describing when you directly next to a tank but if you are say 150m away you probably will not hear it coming. "But what difference doea it make" I hear you say, well most battlefields arent all flat there are a lot of obsticles to vision and if its dark then that quiteness can be quite asset in springing ambushes
@@johnulrich5572 Not sneak up to their backs, but certainly much closer than the range of any AT gun or artillery.
Another thing Soviet tankers really liked about the M4 was the fact that it was much easier to bail out of than a T-34, who's interiors and turrets were much more cramped and had less escape ports. Several Tank Guards units gladly used Emcha's over T-34's.
That would be nice, bailing out is common practice in a Sherman ;)
Hans von Schneider gulag
CarlTheCoworker as it is in ever medium tank.
big ian actually the whole Ronson thing was a myth,
people make fun on this comment but it's spot on. The important asset in WWII were not tanks themselves, but experienced tank crews. Soviets and Americans had no problem producing more tanks but experienced tank crews were always in short supply and highly valuable on the battlefield. It took 6 months of training for the mechanic and the loader and 1 year of training for the commander and the driver, which included 6 months of the entire crew training together. If you think about, it's a HUGE investment. Sherman crews had much better survivability vs. T-34 crews and these crews could get new tanks and keep on fighting.
You have tempered comments and no political opinion, just facts and that's a rare quality on military videos, thanks for this nice one.
Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it
Nice work! I think the M4 is an underrated vehicle that is slowing being "rehabilitated."
TheLoyalOfficer - We can thank “The Chieftan” for spreading the pro-Sherman message, although the M18 is still my favorite WWII tank.
@Bryan Noga The Chieftain is awesome to listen to
As a russian I want to thank all allied countries for sending much needed supplies and weapons.
iloverebeccachambers
your welcome
iloverebeccachambers
Wouldnt it be nice if we got along better ,& stop arming the idiots of the world.
You are joking right?
iloverebeccachambers - Glad we could help! Thank you for your heroic fight!
You're welcome! I think it's awesome that Russians embraced our war machines as they did. Another piece of gear that Russians tested out, loved, and found use for was the old Bell P-39 AirCobras. Most American pilots didn't care for them but Russian pilots loved them for their ruggedness, if not it's looks.
What is admirable about Russians during combat, is that they waste nothing, and make the best use of what they have to work with.
I think the height of the Sherman was both a advantage and disadvantage. Great for peaking over hills with only exposing the turret, but dose also make you a bigger target. There is never a perfect weapon, every pro comes with a con.
It also made the Sherman more roomy, unlike the cramped interior of the T-34.
Shermans are really not getting enough credit. Many people are used to thinking that they were bad tanks but in reality they performed very well.
they WERE bad tanks. By the time US deployed them in Normandy, they were completely obsolete. Panthers and Tigers could snipe at them from safe distances. But, with allied air superiority and depleted German armor divisions from all the losses on the Eastern Front masked this deficiency. Allies could get away on subpar tanks because of their numerical and other advantages.
no the fuck they were not
markv1 the Sherman entered service in ‘42. It should be judged compared to other medium tanks that entered service at that time. Also consider how likely it was for a Sherman to encounter a Panther or Tiger in Normandy. Not very likely at all.
@@mrvk39 "numerical advantage" 4 shermans destroyed 8 Panthers in a certain battle without any losses. The Shermans was not obsolete by any means, they where arguably the most versatile tank in the ww2.
@@mrvk39 may i add that shermans primary enemy were infantry anti-tank weapons such as panzerfausts, panzershreks, AT-guns and can capably defeat the numerous STUGS, hertzels, panzer IVs etc which the Germans fielded. It struggled with Panthers and the Tigers yes but the doctrine at the time was to have dedicated Tank destroyers like the m18 and the m10 to engage these heavies, not to mention the later 76mm armed shermans can punch through the side and rear armor of heavy tanks at combat distances.
You have the tank with 936 on the turret which was Dmitry Loza's tank. Loza was a tank hero of the Soviet Union.
I would have been welding every piece of spare armor I could find onto my tank in key locations.
@@scotthulsey8763 M4A2 had thicker frontal armor than T34...
very awesome we in the US have scant info on the M4's in Soviet service. great to see and hear USSR opinion on M4. not perfect but acknowledge weapons effectiveness and reliablility and same for mechanical of the tank. no mention of high ground pressure from narrow track.steel chevron track was best and HVSS was better yet.
I agree with you...The HVSS Easy 8 was better
At 5:52 you can see two M4A2/76 in the Austrian capital Vienna in late April 1945! There's actually a photo of them driving one block away from where I live! Safe to say I was very surprised!
Favoritenstrasse, April 1945
M4A2 76(w) I love that tank
Don't forget the Jumbo 76mm
Sherman 76 vs Japan would be like dropping an Abrams vs the Germans
The 5,000 or so diesel-driven M4A2 Sherman tanks supplied to the Soviet Union under Lend-Lease by the United States were greatly popular with the Red Army tank crews that operated them; these tanks proved their worth against all models of German armour, including the much-vaunted Tiger and Panther tanks.
Col. Dmitriy Loza of the Red Army's armoured corps wrote a thoroughly informative and interesting account of his experiences as a commander of a tank brigade armed and equipped with the M4A2 Sherman tank.
Col. Loza states the M4A2 Sherman was a perfectly adequate and effective tank against German tanks of all makes and marks provided the crew used the tank properly, utilised the tanks' inherent strengths, and employed correct tactics against German armour.
Col. Loza's book is well worth reading for its description of and insights into armoured warfare on the Eastern Front.
Great video, sherman is good tank.
Thanks.
It sure is :)
Id say the Sherman is most effective in Numbers, with efficient tactics to back it up. In a one on one tank battle with most other tanks in its class, it'd probably loose. The Shermans strengths, at least to me, are its ability to easily be mass produced and the fact that it is easily upgrade-able.
Well both T-34 and Sherman were designed with numbers and upgradability in mind. But Germans focused more on a power of a single unit, where Tiger and Panther were obviously superior to M4 and T-34, but lacked the ability to be mass produced.
+RedEffect
Well the M4, Panther, and T-34 were all medium tanks. You can compare them. You can't give a proper assessment of performance in that sense of a comparison to a heavy tank, like the Tiger.
On paper, the Panther certainly was superior to both. In combat, that varied a lot.
Tigers and Panthers were superior to T-34s and M4s only on paper. Both the Panther and the Tiger had huge reliability issues (especially when it came to the engine, trasmission and suspension) and their engines were also big "fuel eaters". On top of that, they were expensive to produce (as you said) and required well trained crews to operate. Not to mention that the Tiger was also used the outdated flat armor.
While it's true that the early T-34s armed with the 76.2mm gun could not penetrate the Tigers and the Panthers, the T-34-85 with the 52-K 85mm gun could penetrate the Tiger front from up to 1,000 meters, and could pen the mantlet of the Panther from a similar distance. The same thing could be said about the Sherman with the 75mm and the ones with the 76mm gun.
Not to mention that the M4A3E2 Jumbo armed with the 76mm M1 was probably a superior 'heavy' tank than the Tiger, having a comprable gun, better armor, superior mobility, basically no reliability issues and being overall cheaper to produce and easier to use and mantain.
Interesting, no one ever talks about M4 Shermans use in the battle of Kursk. The Soviets always cried about not getting any help but at the same time discounted the number, quality and usefulness of Allied supplied weapons.
The the _M4's_ received by the Soviet Union did not fight in either part of the Kursk front.
Fascinating stuff! They just pulled two Soviet Sherman’s out of the sea a few years ago and got them running again
Nice video, usually I never learn something new about Shermans ‘cause I’ve been studying them for years now, but the deployment of a reasonable number of M4A2(76)W HVSS to the Manchuria border is something new for me!
they used alot of m4 on manchuria front , the m4 will rush down the railroad if i remember correct there is russian documentary about ww2 ( every front have one ep pretty good documentary = pretty new one from 2014-15 i think )
4:38
Bit of a correction: Sherman's firepower in reality were higher then T-34. When Red Army captured Tiger and tested on it every gun possible, they found out that T-34's 76.2 mm gun is virtually unable to penetrate Tiger armor - even it's sides, even from less then 100 meters. Shells just shattered after the impact w/o any damage to the tank. M4's gun performed much better, penetrating Tiger's side armor from 400 meters.
T-34-85 not the 76 mm type and they used APHECBC not APCBC which has better penetration.
wow , they received 4000 shermans during the war. thats like half the amount if pz iv turreted tanks the germans made.
Put that on top of their own (soviet) tank production...
If The Russians loved the Sherman Tank, how can it ever be considered a bad tank then? The field Commander reports sound pretty solid to me.
Post war some amount of sensationalizing German actions and capabilities during the war was part of the reason this view grew- also some veterans holding some views that don't necessarily coincide with other veterans or AAR's/ final reports.
The Soviets figured out better ways to utilize the M3 Grant since they did have plenty left that still ran well. They found them more useful with the 75mm gun and ammo racks removed to reduce weight and create more space. Then they were used as munition carriers towing artillery and as troop carriers by cramming inside as many soldiers as possible. Disabled Grants provided spare parts for the M4's since they used the same engines, transmission, suspension/track and driver controls. The US Army did the same to their obsolete M3's and used them as munition carriers and heavy artillery tugs to free up wheeled transports to haul supplies.
My grand dad was an M4A2 driver during the war. He said that the armor was good but Soviet's was better. The German armor was worst of all, he's opinion
The soviets discovered that you could increase armor by simply making it sloped. It’s amazing that such a simple solution wasn’t discovered earlier.
@@revolution94ful Dude, cmon! The soviets didn't discover that, nor the T-34 was the first tank to have it! That sloped armour increased protection and chances of ricochet was known to everybody. Look a the monitors from the american civil war, and other armored warships. Sloped armor was everywhere.
The reason SOME designers decided not to put sloped armour on some parts of some tanks was due to weight, internal volume, ease of manufacture, and other design choices.
Was it a mistake in most cases? Probably. But the idea that the soviets somehow discovered it, or that the T.34 was the first tank to use it... well, obviously no.
Look at the turrets of the british cruiser tanks. That is sloped armour. Or French tanks, all their frontal armours and turrets where sloped (except the driver's vision slit part). Look at the FCM-36, it's an extreme example of sloped armour everywhere. And it predates the T-34 several years.
Even the germans where fully aware of it's benefits, but opted to just use very slightly angled pieces of armour on most of their designs, to save weight among other things. Again, with hindsight a mistake.
We should try to cut it with the spreading of those miths and tales, repeated time and time again. The T-34 was an exceptional design because it combined firepower, armour and mobility in a way never seen before, and it came out in 1940. The way they used sloped armour was only a part of it.
Great video I'm American and it's cool to see how our funny little tanks fought along side t34 on the Eastern front
The Sherman was a good medium tank. Remember that the purpose of a tank is not to fight other tanks. Its purpose is the enemy rear.
I bet If You give tank crews a choice between a Sherman and a t34 76mm they would take the Sherman. Besides slightly better armor for the t34 Sherman just worked. It had a good radio, stabilized gun, better ergonomics, gun traverse and so on. Please don't look at a tank just from stats there are many more factors for consideration,
+Kopi83r
> *_"Besides slightly better armor for the t34 Sherman just worked"_*
For the most part, the M4 had much better armor.
and crew heaters
5 words, BETTER CREW SURVIVAL AND CONDITIONING
The T-34 is something you'd want to crew if you had no other choice other then that the sherman is a much better pick.
H0st_le You don’t want to crew it. You have to.
Good, factual review. I read a book my a Soviet "Emcha" tanker. Soviet crews liked the Sherman's reliability, and ease of operation, just like you say. They also enjoyed the gifts often hidden in the vehicles by the factory workers! To be fair, however, When American Shermans faced North Korean T34/85's, they were outmatched, and the M26 Pershing had to be brought in.
+frequentfiler
> *_"When American Shermans faced North Korean T34/85's, they were outmatched, and the M26 Pershing had to be brought in."_*
Not at all. The M4s achieved a K:L ratio of 47:8. In fact the M26 was pulled out of combat service to be replaced by the older M4s and the newer M46s due to reliability issues.
Nathan were are your sources? Also I doubt the kill ratio was due tot he tank and more probably the horrible training of the tank crews. Its something similar to the gulf war with the Iraqi I guess
+Robert Li
Concerning the K::L ratio: Steven Zaloga's _M26 Pershing_ book by New Vanguard.
> *_"Also I doubt the kill ratio was due tot he tank and more probably the horrible training of the tank crews."_*
Most American tankers, much like the infantry, were pulled from training rather than W.W.2 veterans.
m4 was the can opener of Korea. early success by the Norks was because there was no tank opposition. first US armor in country was M24 Chaffee light tank.
"Obviously superior." How? speed? protection? reliability? gun accuracy? Gun penetration performance? vision? crew comfort? gun ballistic aids? turret rotation rates? many people have done in depth reports on both vehicles and reviewed their combat performance against German tanks and each other and the T34/85 is certainly not obviously superior. The Easy 8 Sherman for example is considered superior overall and earlier 76 Shermans considered at least on par. The T34/85 took a 3 or 4 to 1 loss rate against even the upgraded mark 4,
Wow, I had no idea the USSR got so many Shermans. Best tank of WWII. Not by fancy features, but by reliability, crew survivability, flexibility, and adaptability. The T-34's the only one that keeps pace with it in war-winning capability.
Don't know why people say American tanks are bad or Soviet tanks are bad they were and are the best tanks in the world hey atleast it's not Arjun
It was also a design a whole three years older, that was being produced while the country was literally being invaded and didn't have the benefit of certain technollogies pioneered in the US.
That's why, while I think the M4 was a somewhat superior tank, the T-34 has arguably more merit to it.
I would definitely call the turret stabiliser a fancy feature, although it took a good crew to get the best out of it.
Many Russians loved their Emchas. The interiors were beautifully done and very comfortable compared to Russian tanks. They also had two radios which for the Red Army was excellent.
Shermans also had an auxiliary power unit, which the T-34 did not have.
An interesting comment about the quality of early American armor it wasn't hard enough. However it was eventually corrected.
Great video and narration, well researched, overall great job! I had always read that Soviet tank crews liked western tanks more for their "crew comforts", compared to Soviet tanks, rather than their combat capability. Also, there was always the maintenance and spare parts problems associated with metric/inches problems. I believe , however, that the greatest aid the US sent was; 2 million vacuum radio tubes, 20 K miles of shielded telephone wires, (all high tech commo gear at the time), and 250 K wheeled vehicles which was greater than the entire German production for the war. That aid to our Soviet allies helped them become the new masters of the Blitzkrieg after summer 1943.
Gronk79 thats true Soviets lacked in logistics equipment. By receiving allied radios and food the industry could focus more on military production. Thus I stil think that the Soviet Union would have won against Nazi Germany without land lease but for a greater cost of human life and resources.
In the end the 2 ww was a combined victory. Soviets played the major role in Europe and Americans and co in Asia/ Pacific theater.
One of the few times where east and west worked together for a greater good.
Soviet tank driver : huh where is the manual to repare it?
US sailors : you repare your tanks?
Excellent video. Nice to hear this level of detail, particularly from Russian sources as tank effectiveness was probably more critical on the Eastern Front as anywhere else during WWII. Sadly the reputation of the Sherman in the West has been undeservedly tarnished by many Western sources.
I had read an article with a Russian tank commander who had excellent things to say about the Sherman. One of the things he noted was that the steel was less subject to fragment from partial penetration or deflected blows. Apparently it was a fairly common event with the T-34 for crew members to be injured or killed even with a non-penetrating hit as the steel would shatter on the inside of the tank whereas the Sherman did not have this problem, or not as much.
By the way, admittedly, I have a particular affinity and bias for the Sherman as my grandfather was a Captain in the 11th Armored division during the war and commanded a Sherman company.
@James T Griffith U.S. Army not sure of his regiment - he only ever mentioned the 11th Armored. He actually came down with appendicitis on the train to their embarkation point (New York I think) and rejoined his unit a few months after they arrived in France. He shared a few stores. Mom said he was awarded a Silver Star for pulling all but one of his crew out of a burning tank plus a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts. Never had the chance to see his medals but he came back with a sizable war chest. Rumor has it that the diamond that grandma was buried with was part of the spoils - 'liberated' from a castle somewhere in Germany.
@Mask Hysteria let me guess, the tank commander was Loza, right?
(4:11) "...In addition, there were a number of cases where the Ju-87, while bombing the tanks, penetrated the side and turret's armor with 20mm cannon fire, resulting in crew casualties." Does anyone know which version of the Stuka had two MG151 20mm cannons ?
The G variant?
The Russians also prized our Dodge and Studebaker 2.5 ton trucks, and the Willys Jeep. American factories could afford the luxury of consistent quality control throughout the entire war. Tighter tolerances meant things didn't wear down so fast and cause breakdowns like the production of countries under invasion or bombing.
And don't forget,spam,spam,spam
M4 Sherman is all in one tank
some of this Shermans send under LL to USSR fought ,via the chinese, during the Korean war against its producers ;)
Not to my knowledge no. The Soviets largely scrapped or stored their Lend Lease tanks. Most of the tanks China as a while received were taken by the Nationalist Chinese government or destroyed by the PLA.
Ididn't know that there was so many american tanks in the red Army . But it's obvious that America helps all his allies in World War TWO. it's not very known in history classes so thanks for these news.
T 34 85 and Easy 8 are easily the best WW2 tanks.Close up would be the Panzer IV and Comet.
Shermans are overall the most upgradable tank. It even serves the Israeli against T-54/55 tanks in 6 day war
@@darnit1944 Indeed, the so called Super Shermans. The M50 and M51 variants, the latter packing a 105mm gun.
There was quite a bit of T34 85 vs Easy 8 Sherman combat in Korea. The Easy 8 came off somewhat better than the T 34 - the US Army considered this due to better training of U S tankers. They felt the T 34 and E8 Sherman were roughly equal!! Both excellent tanks!
I applaud your fair and even reporting. Well done sir.
THE m3 was a mutant created by the radiation from Chernobyle.
Love your channel Sir. It is at least frank and honest.
An excellent presentation I love modelling the LL tanks so good for me to see them for real in Russian service in WW2
This is an excellent video. Very informative. Ii build models of Soviet tanks of The Great Patriotic War. The T-34 used cleats bolted to the tracks in winter. It would not surprise me if some inventive Red Army tankers modified them to fit the M-4. I would be very surprised if they didn't.
I appreciate the objective commentary without bias. Great work!
Good video. Correct pictures. Learned something about the Stuart. Thanks for posting.
@dr bichat
I agree about the Stuart. That school of light tank just lost effectiveness early in the war. One major reason why the Soviets dropped the T-70 tanks was they had all the drawbacks of a light tank but did NOT have a mobility advantage over the T-34 medium tanks. Not a great combination.
Before long the US began shipping M4s with a set of cleated track pads. Replacing several of the standard rubber pads went a long way to wards solving the traction problem.
2:51 Lend-Lease Tetrarch Confirmed
Your bird is freaking out. 😂
Nice video! I like the birds chirping in the background for some reason. :D
The trucks demand respect as well
I’m wondering what exact battles the Soviet M4A2/76 took part it. I know they took Operation Bagration, specifically the liberations of Prague, Vienna, and Budapest. They might’ve been used in the Battle of Berlin, however this is disputed. Entire guard corps such as the 1st, 9th, and 3rd mechanized corps all relied heavily on the Lend Lease Shermans, which they called Emchas and used as their main medium tank instead of the T-34. What I really want to know if they specifically took part in the Battle of Dukla Pass, or in the liberation of Yugoslavia.
After VE Day the US sent over 300 Sherman’s to Vladivostok to assist when the Soviets attacked Japanese Manchuria. The Japanese allowed shipment of US goods to the USSR as Russia was neutral in US-Japan Pacific War. In fact Japan had hopes they could use Russia to help negotiate a favorable end to the Pacific War.
I assumed the Russians leased US Liberty Ships & sailed them under the flag of the USSR. Then the Soviets would provide convoy information to Japan & the US so there would be no accidental attacks. I further assumed the convoy would avoid all of the battle areas as it sailed to Vladivostok.
Hey guys which MBT's can work in the jungle like the Philippines or Indonesia?
The Australians used centurions successfully in Vietnam, probably because the Vietnamese communists didn't have good antitank weapons or training. If tanks weren't such a novelty in Vietnam Im sure they would have learnt to deal with them very easily. Jungle is terrible terrain for tanks to operate in but the bigger the tank is the larger the obstacles they can climb over and the heavier they are the easier it is for them to push their way over small trees.
@@jonathanpersson1205 Maybe they didn't have normal AT weapons cause you fought against literally peasnt militia? You used so dumb argument, concluding that the main reason was COMMUNISM.
@@jonathanpersson1205 No, they certainly did have anti-tank weapons. North Vietnam was stacked with weapons from the Soviets & China. Now, the Viet Cong probably had less of every weapon but they managed.
It's pretty much impossible, mate.
Did I see a M4 Turret on a T34 lol nice
I know crew survivability was better in a sherman just because it is easy to get out of if it is hit.
Can you do video on the Valentine tank, The Red seem to like it more than British, I think about 4000 of the 8000 went to the Eastern front. British wanted to stop production in 44, but Russian asked for it to continue to the end of war, why?
Thank you for the even handed assessments. The US was not under the same pressure as the USSR having its territory invaded, moving its factories while fighting for survival. So it is not surprising that they could produce a polished product and continually refine it. In a book on soviet M-4's I don't remember the title, the crews noted that they were less likely to burn than the early T-34. This is interesting as all the memes of the M-4 being a Ronson etc.The Sherman's as the war progressed became very safe with under floor water storage for main gun ammunition but even the early ones were not statistically likely to burn. However the first T-34 had a very small turret and shells stored around the sides and any penetration of the turret stood a high chance of setting off the propellant in the shells. This was a problem of the sloped sides and a small 2 man turret. The M-4 crew were hiding under their knocked out Sherman tank watching a nearby T-34 tank burning saying to each other that they were luckier than their T-34 brothers. The chance of the side of the Sherman getting penned was higher but when the T-34 was penned the chance of the crew escaping was smaller. The entire casualties of the US armored corps tank was about 1,500 for the entire war all theaters. That included non crew as well. So the M-4 was very safe. The tanks might get knocked out but the crew often walked away.
I think also that the early US tankers seeing burning M-4's were the victims of hardened experienced Germans who were taught to hit a tank until it burned. They well knew a knocked out tank could be repaired in a day or two but a burned tank was gone forever. So you shoot the knocked out enemy tank until it burns. Ha! fix that if you can. If you are advancing and winning you will not do it perhaps because you will own all the knocked out tanks and take them into service after the battle. But if you are unsure of the outcome or on the defensive BURN BABY BURN!!!!!
Another great video, really digging your channel!.
Also some fact to add... Most of the Lend lease help came to the USSR during 1943 to 1945... When the soviets already had the advantage. And the USSR wasn't the most benefitted with the US help... That would be UK
What is not well known is that the Soviet Union was the second largest user of the Sherman tank. Not the British commonwealth like you would think. First of course was the US.
Enjoyed that video. Nice work!
Good video. Will you ever do Sherman vs T-34 (maybe about Korea)?
5:52 theres the legendary loza's sherman over there.
I think you should use the word asked instead of demand it because of that situation they were asking not demanding
Excellent video. Thanks
Thanks for helping Allies! Shake your hand!
You forgot the poor Churchill tank! I have not heard much about soviet use of it though, but I read that a few hundred were sent.
Thanks, this video gives me all answers for the questions i have ;)
4:03 I’d imagine the armor in 🥶 cold weather effected
I read somewhere, that the soviet tankists liked the Shermans 'cause their tech dates were similar like the T-34s had. Good motorization, good weapons, simple operability and straight. Shermans could fight against German medium tanks easily. But against German heavy tanks...not very effective just like T-34s. But English tanks...👎they melted down all of them, and builded T-34s from their material:)
The US made BT-1 was the first export on USSR. Also US is already a super power in the world by supporting them supplies. 😏
the commander is Dimitry federoche loza
ty for making the history video..!!!!
The whole measuring contest between countries needs to stop. The USSR provided the bulk of the manpower, but half of all rolled steel used in Soviet armour was made from American rolled steel and British advances in radar and intelligence gathering gave the Allies a massive advantage. All nations contributed based on their strengths and complimented each other surprisingly well. Look at the Katyusha. Russian rocket launcher on an American studebaker 6 1/2 ton! Allied cooperation at its finest.
Interesting comment about the Sherman's poor armour quality, that's something which is never admitted by US sources of course.
Poor how?
@@peterson7082 All the details are in the video, are you deliberately obtuse?
@@FairladyS130 I am well aware of the points the video makes. But one account doesn't signify what other tankers (i.e. Dmitrit Loza ) withold nor really reflect that it was generally consistent in quality control. With considerably better heat treatment than most other Soviet tanks.
@@peterson7082 If you are aware of the points the video makes then why the query? The first one at 4:01 quote "armour is substandard", there are more. You really are a troll who accepts positive Sherman comments and denies negative ones to the point where in effect you lie.
@@FairladyS130 Not the case at all.
After 1943 the Russians were building more tanks than Germany , why would they still need Sherman's tanks when they were building 2000 T-34 a month? 80,000 total during the war.
+John Smith
58,000 over the course of the war. The 80,000 is including post-war production.
Well 58,000 tanks is many more than Germany made and Germany had to split them between 3 fronts while Russia pointed all 58,000 at Berlin. Germany only built 20,000 Tanks if you do not count anything smaller than a PZIV. That 58,000 is only T-34s it does not count the 6000 SI-2 Heavy tanks.
Including Poland and Yugoslavia.@@peterson7082
Loza ‘s M4A2
good vid red.
Thanks :)
your best yet..
The most reliable tank in the soviet army.
American tanks are garbage though
American exceptionazism 卐 look up lozas Sherman Berlin
@@JL-ot1ou You mean the Soviet tank from WOT? What about it
Ajohnymouse yes that tank is in wot, but it is a real tank and did see action in the battle of Berlin
@@JL-ot1ou I dont think they did, actually. I havent seen any evidence for this after looking into it. They had a few at Kursk but from what Ive read they kept most of the 76mm versions in the far east since they arrived fairly late in the war and were getting ready for the invasion of Manchukuo.
I know its a real tank, the Americans send the M4E2 models because they used diesel and the Soviets only used diesel after the battle of Khalkin-gol in1939. The Soviets only obtained 4000 Shermans from the US and Im not sure if they would use the 76mm variant for Berlin since they had IS-2s and T-34/85s that had much better HE rounds for bombarding the Germans. If you could show me some sources for this, that would be helpful, but Im kind of skeptical of claims of American vehicles being used to the extent we make them out to have been in the late war. I had a professor who said the Soviets only had American trucks entering Romania when the Soviets made at least 86,000 ZIS--5 trucks alone and werent as prolific as GAZ-AA or GAZ-AAA trucks that were effectively soviet copies of ford trucks.
Dont get me wrong, Im a huge fanboy for Dodge and Chrysler so knowing Chrysler made vehicles aiding in the battle of Berlin outside of trucks would make me happy, even if the vehicles are Shermans, which Im not a fan of at all. Bias aside, I care more about facts and evidence and would rather know the truth so I can better teach the subject later rather than push an agenda like a lot of history profs I know sometimes do.
If you ask me, I'll pick the T-34 into combat.
Now now hear me out. I'm not dishing the M4 Sherman but it does has it's issue. If you're in Britain or in the American force, you know that you have tons of supplies to back you up if things break thus you're safe but if you're in a Russian crew, you have to remember that your shells and even spare parts take extra time to arrive to your shores from Vladivastock and even Leningrad which means that if you damage the M4 and have no back up parts, that tank is history but due to the T-34 being made in huge quantities in Russia and if one thing breaks on that tank you're in, you know you'll have a new tank or at least new parts just within hours. That's one point on why I'll pick the T-34 regardless on it's reliability (Only the 1940- early 42 models faced reliability issues).
2nd would be silhouette. The M4, by far, is the tallest medium tank ever made during WWII and it highlighted the massive trouble it had not only in Russia but also in the Ardennes when the Waffen SS Panzer divisions could see the M4 past the hedges due to its height and shoot the turret off the American's head. This created huge issues and if I'm a Russian tanker, I prefer to be cramped and know I won't get shot as much when I'm in cover as I'm not exposing much of my tank out.
3rd would be a big one. Weak gun. Tiger Is are more frequent in the Eastern Front and despite being upgunned, the 76mm M4A2 Sherman still can't pen a Tiger reliably while the upgunned 85mm T-34-85 could and knowing I can pen the Tiger time and time again, I prefer a tank that I can another tank with rather than to have pop shots at the tank like the Sherman would do. I'm not saying that the 76mm sucks. It does well enough to take down Panzer IV and Hetzers but those are TDs or Mediums and the 76mm just can't cut it in destroying Heavy tanks unless it's about 250m from it and by then, the Sherman would have been dead.
However, if I'm in somewhere like Kursk where I have multiple enemies to engage on in an open field, I want the Sherman as it has a better reliability that's comparable to the T-34-85 later on, it has an amazing speed, easier to escape from when hit (The Sherman is spacious compared to the T-34), vertical stabilizers which allows the gunner to somewhat fire when pushing or backing away and an amazing optics and turret rotating speed that makes it a good brawler tank against multiple enemies.
The _M4_ was not the tallest tank. In terms of penetrative performance, the _76mm._ generally fared better than the S-53.
Obviously it's your opinion and I agree with most of your points but if I were to take a take into a battle in World War 2 it is going to be a Sherman for one simple reason. It had the highest crew survivability of any tank and far surpassed the t-34 in that regard. Obviously if my tank gets hit that's not ideal but in war it's almost guaranteed to happen and I'd like to be in the tank with big spring loaded hatches to bail fast rather than a t-34 where I'd probably die if I took a damaging hit.
@@nicholasgiampetro782 If you read thru what I said, I mentioned that at the last point.
Different tanks have different utilities that made that great. For the T-34, it was its "throwaway" mentality that made it a great tank. It's built not to last so it sacrifice creature comforts for battle performance like a big gun and a easy-to-maintain engine so that all you need to do is take a hammer, some oil and off you go.
The Sherman on the other hand was pretty advanced in the US arsenal that they had stabilizers and HVSS suspension and all those stuff which made it a great tank to own. However, its height was its main advantage but if you don't push and simply sit behind like what tanks should do, it makes sense to have the Sherman despite all its guns being relatively weak.
If I'm in a severe attritional warfare like what the Russians suffered all the way up to 1944, I want the T-34 due to it's extreme "No frills and I just wanna push these pesky Krauts back" mentality and with that big 82mm later on, shoot at anything that moves. If I'm the Western Allies, I want the Sherman as it gives me the most comfort, best view with my various scopes and I also know I could escape faster if I'm hit and also, shoot on the move despite not being able to pen anything with that trash 75mm nor the 76mm.
@@MrLolx2u yeah i read your comment and saw that, and from a grand strategy pov you're right the t-34 is the best tank for the eastern front but I read your comment as you saying if you were a tanker you'd want to be in a t-34. And if that's what you'd want to be in I can't to you your wrong I'm just saying I'd take a Sherman because it puts me at the lowest chance of dying.
Excellent !
Good video!
"demand" is a big word.
Loza's M4A2 Sherman?
Russians actually liked the Sherman's armor that the t34. non penetrating shots on the t34 are liable to crack the hull due to the poor alloy used.
M3 Lee, thats the tank you take back to the US, melt it down and build more Shermans with the material.
in world of tanks we really hate the fucking M3 Lee to unlocked T1 heavy and M4 sherman
I'd love to hear how the M4 performed at Kursk if you can find any reports on it.
Very few if any were at Kursk.
What's not known by many is that the Soviet Union was the second largest user of the Sherman tank not Great Britain like you would suspect. For propaganda reasons the amount of support the Soviets got was down played after the war. There's a real possibility that the Soviets would have been knocked out or the war could have taken far longer to win.
If you've ever played WoT then the nickname of the Lee is very accurate.
Not all the types of M4s had bad armor like the jumbo had over 100mm armor
+marco
It wasn't bad armor to begin with.
marco Jumbo was a mean little sucker,and I believe it could bounce a 88 mm ,frontaly,which is quite impressive .Some had the 76mm gun ,but most had the 75mm or the 105 !
thomas Gokey Germany is superior
tiger cat you lost, fool.
@thomas Gokey
Check this out if you haven't:
www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/US/m4a3e2-jumbo-assault-tank
If you read a bit between the lines adding the extra weight crushed the reliability. It passed a 500 miles test but the tank was never meant to be used that often or driven for great distances. Those aren't requirements you want to have to work around. It was a cludge but a cludge that worked well enough.
Please do a review of MBT 2000 or Al khalid tank
2.53 in time, are tetrarch tanks there?
The grave for 7 brothers was A fucked up looking tank!
backwoodsbully The M3 Lee? I think it's cool looking
They used one in the movie 1941
Excellent ........ MRGA
soo what was written on the side of that one tank?
what kind of birds do you have?
They DEMAND?
The m-26 pershings would have been better against the German tanks with their 90mm main gun. And I think the tanks with gas engines were much more suitable for Russian weather.