Myths of American Armor. TankFest Northwest 2015
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- I was invited to go up to TankFest Northwest by the Flying Heritage Collection. I chose to address some of the common misconceptions about American armor in WW2. There were some post-facto pop-ups which were supposed to appear, but CZcams seems to have disabled the functionality. For example, the "Honey" use by the British (which did happen) does seem to have been obtained from the Americans. Bob Crisp's book indicates his driver started it out and he had been guilty of hanging out with the Texan manufacturer's representative too much. "Ronson" did have an advert in the early 1920s saying akin to "Lights every time", though one may question awareness of it two decades later.
Thanks to Wargaming Seattle for the cameraman.
Links to some articles referenced in the annotations, for further reading. From The Chieftain's Hatch:
"What's in a name" Two parts.
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
Pershing-related articles.
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/Th...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/Th...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-br...
The End of the M4(75)
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/th...
Firefly Links
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/Th...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/Th...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/Th...
US Guns, German Armor. Two parts.
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/ch...
worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/us...
The disconnect between the view of dealing with German AFVs in MTO at ground level vs General level.
worldoftanks.com/en/news/chie...
Discussion thread: forum.worldoftanks.com/index.p...
Facebook page: / thechieftainwargaming
"Every tank was reported as a Tiger"
I was very confused as a kid trying to figure out which was the Tiger and which was the Panther. A major source of that confusion were the WWII documentaries I saw back then with Brit tankers talking about the Tiger tanks they encountered.
The confusion was cleared up when I saw another documentary as a teenager with another tanker giving another anecdote about "This Tiger suddenly came over the hill..." when he stopped mid sentence, turned to the camera and said "...we called every tank a Tiger back then."
Look up the Stan Boardman joke on Parkinson with the anecdote about when a Polish airman recounted his experiences as a Free Pole in the RAF. Funny but appropriate!
“Significant emotional event” is a wonderful way of putting it.
for beeing death stunned terrified
@xr7fan and front of their trousers event
I had a very significant emotional event hearing that, and my office colleagues are wondering what I am giggling myself to tears about. :D
I like that dry humor, too.
If you play realistic or simulator in war thunder ground battles,you get that significant emotional event when you get sniped from a distance and have no idea where you're being shot from
40:27 "What was the Western Allies' most effective ground attack aircraft?"
Bazooka Charlie!
That dud is a legend
The real answer would be the A-20 or A-26. They were built to destroy anything and everything on the ground they encountered and they were damn good at it
@@hvymtal8566 a 10
@@harrypoon3410 A10 wasnt in WWII buddy
@@EthanThomson oh yea u're tell me that a plane with 30mm 7barrel gatling gun aint in ww2, wtf?
17:09 He says "The battle of the bulge was in full swing" as a very pregnant lady pauses behind him.
Perfect timing.
I was gonna say the same, but I always check the comments first...it was perfect!
She even looks up at the camera as he says it too.
I wonder how that kid is doing.
Yay! Someone mentioned the "Holy crap it's a Tiger!" phenomenon.
American/British tankers: "Aaargh! It's a Tiger! Call in the artillery!"
Panzer IV commander: "It's about time those fat-arse bastards showed... oh, crap. They're talking about me, aren't they? Bugger."
Darryl Aoki
American tank * sees barn *
“AAAAA! A JAGDTIGER!)
Much like with online games, when people lose the fight, they often try to explain it as a result of their opponent having a more powerful tank, when it usually has a lot more to do with experience and skill. If you're getting spotted and shot at first, it almost doesn't matter if it's a Tiger or a late war Mark IV.
@Googlar
Agreed. People dont realise that when shermans ambushed tigers it was completey one sided towards the americans.
.@@reid1283 True of any properly executed ambush, regardless of who executes it..
If the transmission is intact, it’s a panzer IV silly allied tankers.
“Having a Significant emotional event” is still the best line and delivery I've heard in years.
Soviet tank crews of Lend-Lease Shermans loved them. In particular, they were far more comfortable rides, and required less maintenance -- the treads, for instance, lasted twice as long. And if hit, they were far less likely to explode than a T34 because of more stable American explosives. At least, according to Dmitriy Loza.
The Soviets provided a T34 and a KV in 1942 for testing. The Americans found the guns to be reliable but unimpressive, the optics to be excellent, most everything else (especially built quality) to be lacking, and thought that whoever designed the engine air filter should be hanged for collaboration with the Germans.
MWSin1 yeah the Sherman’s were good (fuck the Stuart’s were not gonna talk about them) but they didn’t fit Soviet doctrine so they were less used but the 76 was ok 👍🏻
More stable american explosives? WTF? There is no such thing. There are other things like the wet ammo rack, but i really doubt that U.S sent M4's with wet ammo rack / wet stowage to USSR because it was added later during the war to the M4 trough experience of Shermans cooking up easily after getting penetrated by German tanks. I have listened to Soviet veterans who actually fought in BOTH the T-34 and M4 Sherman they said that T-34 was a better combat tank and M4 was only more comfortable, but if they had to choose they would always pick the T-34 for combat!
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w "Shermans cooking up easily" ... Hello person who didn't actually watch the talk.
@@creativeanachronist He literally said that the Sherman had about the same chances of being cooked as German PzIV and the wet ammo rack reduced it by 5-10% and even though he did not really go into this subject, his point was that the M4 crew survival was slightly higher because of the great escape hatches (and NOT because it did not cook off easily.) Though Chieftain has his own biases if you have watched his other videos, for example he says that it was hard for T-34 driver to get out, but actually veteran T-34 drivers would put their leather belt in between the hatch so they could easily get out. These kind of small details are missing when he is talking about Soviet or German tanks.
@@user-dp4ok9ox5w 37:08 Wet ammo stowage brought down ammo fires TO 5-10 percent, not by. Dry stowage burned as any other tank massaged by AP shells. And its kinda difficult to talk about "small details" on Soviet/German tanks when there aren't many veteran tankers around and most "unofficial" mods aren't recorded in the archives.
I love this man. I could hear him talk all day. His personality is basically someone who has heard every myth in the book, every out of context claim, every weak/bad source, every handed down generalization in history. He just said "To hell with it. The time for cordiality is over!"
PRO-SOVIETS
And despite his protestations has been there and done that as well as doing his research………..
Ever notice how people who say Shermans always burned due to petrol, rarely if ever say the same about all the other country's petrol fueled tanks?
+Pershingtank Indeed I've noticed. The strange thing is the US, next to the USSR, was *THE* largest user of diesel engines.
+Pershingtank The propensity to burn was traced to ammunition fires, and corrected with 'wet stowage.'
I find more often than not people who make such a claim will also claim German tanks were all diesel-powered
Not claiming it to be true, but I had heard that it was that way because the Shermans used a High Octane fuel, similar to that needed for Aircraft. Dunno any truth to it though.
The first Sherman's actually used a
Rotary engines, similar to aircraft of the day. Later models used typical motor engines.
Guys at the "History" Channel should watch this :).
They're likely to favor whichever idea they have good film or video to accompany!
I just watched a documentary of Area 51 on history channel, they claimed that north vietnamese migs shot down 7000 US fighters but after top gun not a single one
They call the M4 Sherman an "Engineering Disaster".
I'll go with the veterans experience over the history channel and this guy any day.
Sherman tanks did 1000 miles and needed minimal maintance. A panther tank hull was completly worn out at 960 miles. Engineering wise, the Sherman is the best tank of WW2.
It is worthy of note that Shermans performed very well in Korea vs T-34s.
About time someone gives the poor Sherman the credit it deserves. As much as I love Pershings, tigers, and fireflies, there was a lot of misconceptions about them. The Sherman was always great tank. Was it the best? No, it was great for it’s time and what it was designed for.
The best weapon is the one that wins!Crassus' army was destroyed by lightly armored Persian horse archers-they weren't yjr biggest, heaviest or most powerful men on the battlefield, but they wiped out an army of Roman Legionaries nonetheless less.The German warships destroyed in the invasion of Norwaywere done in by destroyers smaller than their'swith guns no larger and no armor to speak of. Heavy cruiser Blucher was sunk by a shore-mounted torpedo launcher and cost-defense guns. It's how the men and weapons are used that makes the real difference!
Charles Chapman I agree. The British also experienced this during the Spanish Armada. the Spanish tried to invade with their behemoth warships. The British actually won because they had faster, more agile, and affordable ships. Sometimes the best equipped wont win the war. Sometimes things that are good enough is all you need.
Charles Chapman Have a look at the Battle of Agincourt while you’re about it.
It was the best tank for the situation that the U.S. found itself in. Very versatile, reliable, and survivable. I love that little thing.
What gets me is people who damn the Sherman while singing the praises of the T-34. Both were good in 1942 (against, primarily, Mk 3s with 37 or 50 mm guns), still fairly good in 1943 (Mk 4 with 75mm, Panther introduced), then inadequate and upgunned in 1944. Yet in Korea, late-model M4s and late-model T-34-85s can penetrate each other at normal combat ranges. Maybe the M4 isn't the horrendous death trap it's condemned as? (Sarcasm)
I think a myth busting lecture about the T34 would also be very interesting.
LordEd21 21 : It is not the tank that was bad, it is the crew that were not trained. Performance of the tank has nothing to do with the tank itself, rather, all to do with the one who operates it.
Gerson Pontes : Your 3 to 1 kill death ratio doesn't really mean anything, even if it was true. How many of these tanks fell to something else than another tank ? There is a percentage of tanks that were destroyed by mines, Bazookas, SP guns, AT Guns, Airplanes, mechanical failures , etc etc.
The Soviet sustain heavy losses during Operation Barbarossa for a number of factors, and people stick to that as if it means it was like that the whole war. Operation Barbarossa was only the first 6 months of a 4 year war.
The soviet losses as a whole ( human ) were probably at a ratio of 5 to 1, or 7 to 1, during Operation Barbarossa. Then it changed to something like 2 to 1 during 1942, and from 42 to 45 it was 1 to 1.
People who still believes in the propaganda that the Soviets were not good at fighting and only won by number and weather are still clinging to an idea that the U.S came up with during the Cold War to make them ( the soviet union) look weak and stupid. They are basically information that were available back in the 1950s
Also, it wasnt only just propaganda, it was the lack of information available. Back in the past ( 1950 to 1990 ) we could only rely on German documents to write books and documentary about the Eastern Front because the Soviet didnt let us have their Secret documents and other information. Back in the 90s, secret document from the Soviet era and world war 2 were all released to the public and Historians were quick to jump on them, especially David M. Glantz. I suggest you go read his books if you want to be kept up to date with the new information.
Furthermore, it gets more complicated than this. Have you ever wonder what it takes in the German army to have a kill, and what it takes in the Red Army to get a kill ? Each country is different in terms of kills and confirmed kills.
For exemple, in the German army, you only need to disable a tank in order to get a kill to your name. Meaning that the German commander Hans Deutschland might have 5 kills at the end of the battle. 2 of them completely exploded, 1 of them has been detracked, and the 2 others are still functioning but the crew bailed and abandoned the tank. But during the night the Soviet come back, take back the 3 tank and repair them. The next day, they send another wave of tanks, including the 3 that Hans D. killed the day before. Hans D, during the second battle, kills another 7 tanks, including the same 3 that he killed the day before. During the night, the Soviet comes back and repair 3 of these 7 tanks that were detracked and abandoned.
So far, that is 12 kill for that Tank commander in the German army. With 6 of these kills being the same tanks.
In the Red Army, to get a kill to your name, you need to destroy that tank beyond repair. That means that if Tank Commander Alexei Russkie hit 5 tanks, 2 of them completely explode, 1 of them is has been detracked, and the 2 others are still functioning but the crew bailed and abandoned the tank. During the night the Germans come back to repair the 3 tanks. Alexei Russkie will have 2 kills. The next day, he gets 7 tanks, but only 3 of them exploded beyond repair.
So far, that is 5 kills for that Tank commander in the Red Army.
Both Tank Commander damaged the same amount of tank and made those tanks useless to the current battle. Both Hans D way of his country to count kills mean he got credited for all 12. While Alexei's country way of counting kills means he got credited for 5 kills.
This pretty much explains why the German army had the most aces of all countries, even though they were getting beaten on all fronts. Germany, being on the retreat for a long part of the war, needed heroes to boost morals and a great way to get heroes and boost moral is to produce Aces.
And please, lets keep in mind that the person LordEd21 21 is taking is information from someone who worked on a world war 2 video game, and not an Historian. " I worked as a consultant for Talansoft Inc, on war games... Experience gained in developing the combat attributes for the unit database in the East Front game systems has contributed to the methodologies detailed in Volume I of this work."
So I will personally put my trust better into accredited Historians that studied about the war. Rather than some guy who created video games and read some books. Im not saying his book is shit, I dont know, I havent read it.
He does mention "In the late 1990s it became possible to consider building a historically accurate and publishable military simulation of Operation Barbarossa, because of three converging factors: the opening of the Russian archives to researchers and authors..." So at least it means he got his information from the recent sources, wich is a good sign.
Indeed! It must be remembered that, like the Italians, Soviet society was still mainly agrarian, and the vast majority of farming was done using livestock pulling plows, so most of Soviet society was not tech-savvy. Also, very few Soviets outside of certain urban centres had much of an education, and, in fact, many Soviet soldiers & tankers were functionally illiterate. Understandably, these shortcomings limited how much training T-34 crews could received & the crews would also lack the ability to learn/adapt from one engagement to the next (if they survived). On top of that, because of the rapid advance of the Nazis, there was little time to educate & train the masses anyway. Consequently, while the T-34 & KV-1 were perfect for an unsophisticated & inexperienced population, the crews lacked any sort of knowledge re: battlefield tactics and paid for it dearly.
Furthermore, Soviet doctrine believed that a good defense was an aggressive offence, so early-on T34s were often sent out in relatively small numbers to attack advancing columns of Nazi AFVs. These T-34s fell prey to Nazi anti-tank guns as much as tanks, and since the kill ratios usually favour the defender (the Nazis) T-34 & other Soviet tanks were lost in great numbers. Finally, the Soviets had a habit of continuing attacks that extended beyond what was necessary & too far ahead of the supply trucks, which made them vulnerable to counter-attacks, which caused a lot of unnecessary losses too.
During late 1942 and in 1943, once the long-barreled Stug IIIs, long-barreled PzKmpfW IVs, Tigers, Panthers, Elephants, Nashorns, etc arrived on the battlefield, the T-34 gun started to be outranged by the German tanks. So, on the wide-open steppes, well-trained German gunners were knocking out many attacking T-34s before the T-34s were close enough to score a kill. This added to the losses of T-34s
Finally, the abilities of the vehicle & the crew are taxed much more during an attack than when in a defensive role. Several of the weak points of Soviet tanks during the first half of the war on the Eastern Front were especially problematic when attacking. The lack of a proper commander's cupola meant that during an attack, either the commander had to stand up through the hatch to see what was going-on around him (dangerous), or if the commander & crew had to 'button-up', visibility & the all important "situational awareness" was severely compromised. Furthermore, Soviet tanks during the first half of the war lacked intercom communications & were quite limited in tank-to-tank communication. Consequently, T34 tank platoons did not operate as a team with any efficiency, meaning that losses of tanks & crew were high. (a huge number of T-34s were destroyed within a few days after leaving the factory!)
The net result was that a massive number of T-34s were lost.
@Hobo Tango
That part of the counting a Kill is totally untrue and the idea that someone come back in the night and claim a broken Tank and refit is ridiculous,..if you won the battle and own that area then you were able to,..if not then that Tank was lost.
I would come down from your high horse, even some points are mentioned are correct you are far away to be the bearer of truth.
8:05 - Amusingly, one of the slogans of Zippo was, "It Works, Or We Fix It For Free"
That sums up the Sherman a lot better than ‘lights first time’
That’s amazing lol
Table of Contents:
Perils of Truth by Common Knowldge: 0:14
Were the Germans Afraid of General PAtton: 0:51
Who am I and What I do : 1:29
Important Names and Faces: 2:16
Army Organisation : 4:37
Myth 1 Names of Vehicles 5:04
Myth 2 Tanks Didn't Fight Tanks 8:34
b. What about McNair 10:15
Myth 3 Tank Destroyers 11:25
Myth 4 Pershings could have come earlier 13:30
Myth 5 Shermans had Low velocity guns for better HE shells: 20:04
75mm was bad at dealing with tanks:
Myth 6 Firefly Sherman was Best sherman: 23:20
Where did the rep come from?: 26:22
Myth 7 It took 5 Shermans to kill a cat: 28:05
Real world Performance 29:59
Where did the myth come From?: 32:32
Myth 8 Sherman was a Death Trap: 33:34
Myth 9 Tactical Air Killed Tanks: 40:20
Conclusion 44:30
Timestamp next time
@Media and Entertainment wanna hear a joke?
@@melonfelon1574 Does it involve a Tiger beating a Sherman in a long distance marathon?
@Media and Entertainment Superiority doesn't mean much when your outnumbered 100 to 1 and your tanks break down every couple of miles. The Tiger and Panther only constituted an extremely small number of the germans total tanks, as most of their tanks were Panzer 2s 3s and 4s, and the Sherman was more than a match for all of them even with the 75mm. Hell, with a 76mm the Sherman's wouldn't have much difficulty knocking out a tiger either, especially with the Hvap shot they got later on.
@Media and Entertainment The life you must live to respond within 1 hour to a dissenting comment on a video you yourself haven't commented on for 6 months. Not to mention the anger, lack of statistics, and overreaching narrative your trying to peddle.
I could listen to him talk about tanks all day.
Sigh, I have. There's nothing worse than WoT's background music many of them have.
I do lol
Him sounding a bit like Jordan Peterson helps
My two favorite points that stood out to me were:
The Pershing wasn't "delayed" it was just unproven and the US Army didn't want to repeat Germany's mistake at Kursk with the Panther being rushed into production and breaking down. Before you can commit large amounts of resources to manufacturing any weapons system you damn well better make sure it works.
Second was that the most important component to an any armed force was the infantryman and his rifle. Not tanks and planes.
+Tin Man This is a typical reality dodging post like you and all the other US apologists, including the OP, indulge in.
The point about the Pershing was how long it took for the US to get something decent into production given it's privileged situation eg compared with Germany who by circumstance had no option but to rush the Panther into service. See the crucial difference? Is it that hard to be sort of objective in your thinking?
Your comment about the importance of infantry is quite right but then you fail to elaborate. Way back in WW1 it was learnt that tanks helped infantry to break though, advance and reduce their casualties yet by any criteria the Sherman was far from being a effective infantry support tank. As all other major combatants showed by their choice of a suitable tank for that purpose eg Churchill, Tiger. Or was everyone else wrong and the US right lol?
One reason why you try to have the best tank is to preserve the lives of the crews. That is so obvious that to seriously argue otherwise is defective. Doesn't the US now try to have the best tank? Geez.
They where in war situation they got to rush it out. The US could produce without beeing bombed. What is a shame the build Crap tanks and had the time . Tzzz
R Greenup have you watched the video entirely? Also the Sherman has the lowest crew loss rate of the entire war. The panther and the tiger did not because of the numerous reasons stated in the video.
It's interesting that you'd try to apply the protection of troop life in 2018 as if it was first priority in 1941.
You're getting stuck in the dopey conclusion that the quality of an individual piece is more important than anything else.
the Germans could've had the abrams and still lost the war due to small numbers and lack of fuel.
There's nothing apologist about it. Germany was an innovative and effective war machine. Otherwise, they were generally deluded about the soviets giving up early, and somewhat lucky that they were out of the war before the US perfected the atomic bomb. There was no emergency to use it in japan - the war in japan was contained, and germany would've received the first two if the war had lasted long enough.
The country itself, without air superiority, would've also been forced to sit in their tanks and endure endless air attacks. But you can get yourself lathered up about the Sherman if you'd like.
Analysis can give completely different REASONS as well as results. For example, aircraft coming back from bombing runs were full of holes and the airplane designers were going to upgrade, at considerable explense in time, weight, and personnel, the places with the MOST HOLES. The analysis guys disagreed and stated, "No, these planes MADE IT BACK WITH THIS DAMAGE, SO THE AIRCRAFT HIT IN PLACES >>NOT >TRUE CASUALTIES
An excellent example, that.
Thank you. I have been studying this stuff for about 50 years. See my articles and computer programs at NAVWEAPS.COM. Still learning. This is a very complex topic...
+Nathan Okun
The Nathan Okun of Navweaps? I praise your work greatly. Thank you for the information on naval and to some degree land based artillery and weapons systems that this excellent resource displays.
The technical term is "survivor bias".
Didn't MAV made a video about that
Being American when I saw the title of the video I was thinking that it was going to be a hatchet job. I was pleasantly mistaken, and would like to thank you for the great information.
yeah its never easy to hear negative things about something you hold dear, im British and we get it all the time. As someone who's into history you must search for the truth regardless of how it paints you. Truth is they were all brave boys for fighting for their country.
@@richpurslow3283 *brave bois
The IL-2 Sturmovik is my favorite WW2 plane, followed by the Mosquito!
"The only drawback of the Mosquito is that there are never enough of them."
Mr BigCookie that was a real quote I believe
@@yamato3870
A0
"significant emotional event" had me pmsl!!!!!!!!!!!
This guy is a born teacher....
…"Significant emotional event" is British for "Just shit themselves" 😝😝😝😝😝
I am Pete It’s actually funnier than that because it’s a major understatement using military-style terminology.
Good piece of information
Even War Thunder community decided to share this on the Reddit
Were they banned for blasphemy of the great lord of gaijin? ;)
nope ;)
I use this for their wiki
Well to be fair the COMMUNITY behind War Thunder is much more obsessed with historical accuracy within the game.
A Typical CZcamsr I will admit as a wot player, that is true
It is surprising since a lot of their players go to WoT videos to bash.
Was sorting through my books looking for things I no longer wanted to donate to my local library. Came upon my old dusty copy of 'Death traps' and momentarily held it over the giveaway pile. Decided it was best that nobody else read it and kept it. I remember reading it many years ago and it left an impression on me that shaped my opinion of the M4 for quite some time. It's very good of you to address the author's points so succinctly as I find many people are terribly misinformed on this topic in one way or another.
you should've made that book a death trap and burned it, bet the book is more flammable than the ammunition!
You should be weary of one guy using the internet to re-write the historical narrative.
You're not alone. It's pretty much what the History Channel took for their American Armor bible and now you can't even count how many idiots out there refuse to believe anything else.
I’d trust a personal account vs someone who just read things printed on paper, war is a confusing mess and to say the things he says with such certainty while discounting to a degree someone that was actually there is absurd.
@@soldat2501 Yup - everyone that watched The History Channel during the 90s - early aughties without doing their own independent research would otherwise be convinced that America's armor design was laughably inferior to Germany, the poor tank crews were like lambs being sent to slaughter against the "vastly superior" "cat" tanks, and the US only won the war due to sheer mass production. I would go so far as to say Wehraboos likely wouldn't exist in significant numbers if not for the (unintentional?) pro-German military propaganda that represented a significant percentage of the channel's content at the time. I don't know what's worse - OG History Channel's pro-German propaganda or the channel's slide into TLC style reality TV garbage... (i.e. Swamp People, Ice Road Truckers, Ancient Aliens, etc.)
The important thing to remember is that designing a tank is similar to designing a dreadnought battleship. You can only get so much into a hull with specific armament and armor, and specific rated engines. If you want more armament in the same size hull, you give up speed or armor. No one tank is the perfect tank because there is no perfect battleship. And one other thing that is of higher consideration than all the rest; you have to pay for it. If there is only so much money for defense spending, you have to decide on a few great ones or just many good ones. It's a balancing act.
It's more like the U.S army had such a high standard for their tanks. Everything had to be the highest quality and easy to repair in the field because the logistics of shipping damage armor back to America is a nightmare. The Sherman could have been replaced by the pershing halfway through the war but it was rejected after testing because it wasn't up to the standards of the military.
Finally someones gives the Sherman the respect it deserves. May not have been the best, but it got the job done and did it well.
I can't believe it's been 6 years since this video. This changed my perception completely on the Sherman and to a certain extent on WWII. This was the first video of The Chieftain I ever saw, he's had great content ever since!
However, some of the comments on German tanks are incorrect, while other assertions are skewed and cherry picked.
@@lyndoncmp57511 year late but can you elaborate on it?
@@Bernoris
Certainly. When he claimed the 75s were dealing with Ferdinands in Italy he was wrong. Not a single Ferdinand was taken out by 75s in Italy. I have The Combat History of Schwere Panzerjager-Abteilung 653. It details all Ferdinand losses. None were to 75mm.
Also regarding armour protection. He rightly includes the angling of the Sherman armour in "effective" thickness but doesn't do the same with the Tiger (10 degrees upper front plate and 24 degrees lower front plate) or mention that the unique 265 Brinell Hardness and nickel-steel on the Tiger gave it a circa 12% extra effective thickness than the best allied armour. This meant that the Tiger Is armour was the effective equivalent of up to nearly 130mm on the lower front plate, not 100mm as on paper. Perhaps he wasn't aware of this, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Lastly the Sherman fatalities are skewed. They only include armour branch figure. Most Sherman crewmen did not come under the armour branch, but infantry and cavalry. There were nearly a hundred tank battalions in the infantry divisions. Even the circa 10,000 Sherman crews transferred over to the armoured divisions still retained their infantry/cavalry nomenclature so wouldn't have been included in the "armour" branch.
@@Bernoris
The "3 encounters with Tiger Is" is also wrong but I believe he has recanted that elsewhere. There were actually two units with Tiger Is that faced American forces numerous times in NW Europe from November 1944 to April 1945. Schwere Kompanie Hummel and Abteilung Fkl 301. These fought in the Aachen, Ardennes, Rhine and Ruhr Pocket battles against American forces. Far more than just 3 times.
Their deployments can be seen in Tigers In Combat Volumes 1 and 2 by Wolfgang Schneider.
“It’s only a sturmgituz! Hey joe we don’t need you and your buddy”😂
Jazzdog Music
Hate to be that guy but
It’s Sturmgeschutze.
Although I can see how you could get that from Nicks pronunciation
@@Kurvaux Counter point, that’s probably how Joe and his Buddy would have said it back in WW2 because who has time to learn what he thing shooting you is called in another language.
Good on ya Chieftain.
Diligently working to undo the damage caused by Belton Cooper.
Talk to Clarence Smoyer. Read Spearhead. Something's not jiving here.
@@hungry1011 oh no you didn't just use Spearhead as evidence the Sherman sucked. I know you didn't just do that. I'm sitting here hugging my copy of Spearhead because how badly you massacred the events of the book. Note how everything where the Sherman gets taken out is specifically either an ambush or a massive shitstorm of infantry, Panzerfaust, tanks, and AT guns. Additionally in the book, there is the whole story where they take out all the AT guns with smoke shells? Plus how many crew survive each time a Sherman is hit? You seriously adapted that book to fit what you wanted to say. It's not even mostly about the Sherman.
@@an_f-14_tomcat
but don’t you know, anecdotal evidence is always reliable and veterans are supercomputers who will totally never embellish events or simply have imperfect memory.
i mean we should aLwaYs tRusT vEteRaNs when they give us the Garand ping myth.
Sometimes I come back to this video a d read the comments and think to myself did anyone bother watching the video ??? Cause he answers alot of the arguments in the comments lol
This is actually brilliant.
And just to go one more, a lot of the worst Sherman brew-ups happened amongst those tankers who overloaded their tanks and had 75/76mm cartridges lying just everywhere.
Being producable, reliable, fixable and mechanically sound mean so much more.
SynerG4ce The British were notoriously bad at doing this. There is a reason for the discrepancy in burn rates between US and Brit M4s.
Brice Fincher The British armored force had the worst ergonomic disasters any tanker had to deal with, at least all of the disasters not named T-34. Not a single piece of British armor designed for the war was designed by someone who had driven tanks and so absolutely zero thought was given to combat ergonomics.
So conditioned were they to the cramped life of the tanker that when they saw the ergonomic brilliance of the Shermans all they could think about was what to do with all the "wasted" space (IE space designed to allow crew move around, avoid points of crew fatigue and its resulting drain on efficiency, etc.). So they filled a lot of that area with ammo and went back to being cramped just the way they liked it.
Once British armored command got wind of the actual problem and started forcing tankers to accept the life of relative ergonomic luxury that was driving a standard-model Sherman things went rather better.
Compared to what an office chair looked like in the 1940's that's pretty much what they put in the tank.
***** What do you think I meant by "producible?" ;) Maybe I should have spelled it right the 1st time. (oops)
***** You misunderstand.
Nazi Germany had a fundamentally flawed procurement strategy, esp. with-respect-to armored fighting vehicles.
Their greatest success came when they were actually outgunned -- Pz I - IV's could not stand toe-to-toe to the greatest Allied tanks seen in the Battle of France and Barbarossa.
(tactics, strategy, radios, and combined arms made the difference, too)
Once Nazi Germany focused on leap-frogging on technical and technological grounds, they lost all hope of fielding adequate numbers of AFV's (and tanks), even if they had the best armor, best "comfort," and best guns a tank could boast in WWII. (Panther, Tiger, King Tiger, Jagdpanter, Jagdtiger, Ferdinand)
The technical reaches these vehicles represented also meant they weren't very reliable.
Arguably, the most valuable AFV Nazi Germany could boast in 1944 and 1945 were the StuG's; if not them, then the Panzer IV's.
Though they could only boast gross parity compared to Allied mainstays (Sherman, T-34), the AFV a 3rd Reich infantry platoon -- or comany -- or battalion -- or brigade -- could boast, if even it was only a StuG or Panzer IV, was INFINITELY-MORE VALUABLE than the world-beating Tiger II or Panther they couldn't rely upon BECAUSE THERE WERE NEVER ENOUGH.
You say "oh, it's just numbers, not actually good design" I say "of course it is -- and those numbers are also the product of a fundamentally better design" where 'better' is a more complex evaluation than gun penetration, effective line-of-sight armor thickness, and shell caliber.
17:00 The pretty pregnant lady looking directly at the scene at the moment he says "Battle of the Bulge." Coincidence?
Lol. Yeah, the word bulge definitely perked her head up. Probably thinking about that baby bulge, bulging, BULGIBG 100 times per day.
Or maybe she's a C hungry W and looks up and around anytime anyone mentions anything related to a "bulge"? I bet she'd like to battle my bulge. She'd win though. My guy is a hard fighter but almost always runs out of gas and pukes it's guts out. Then siiiigh..... defeat.
cory graner you are a real specimen.
Please do myths of German and Russian armor.
Here you go : Myth no.1 : The german tanks where the best.
Myth no.2 : Russian tanks where always inferior.
Smintina Vlad
*were
he was talking about myths, you wrote some facts
Fingers Panzer 6 “Hanz, mein tranzmizzion broke again!” Panther.
Fingers
And you wrote a joke.
Great talk.
Regarding the origin of "Honey," Major Bob Crisp of 3RTR, (whose other claim to fame is that he is the only bowler in first class cricket to take four wickets in four balls twice,) in his memoir of the Operation Crusader battles, "Brazen Chariots" ascribes the naming of the M3 to his driver, Whaley. On receiving their new tanks in August 1941 Crisp took his out into the desert for a test. Having ascertained that the tank could do 40 mph flat out, Crisp then had and had his driver turning doughnuts to see what it would take to shed a track:
"Whaley put her through a variety of turns and manoeuvres that made the sandy floor of the desert look like an ice rink after a hockey match, spurting up great fountains of sand and dust behind the tracks.
"That'll do," I shouted to the driver at last. "We're beginning to wear out the desert."
Back at the camp the C.O. and a small crowd were waiting for us. We climbed out, all grinning happily.
"Well Whaley," I asked my driver, "what do you think of it?"
He, plainly under the influence of the nearby Texan, beamed and said simply: "It's a honey, sir."
From that moment they were never known as anything else." (p.8)
The "nearby Texan" referred to was one of the American technicians in Egypt familiarizing the British with the tank, ( and don't forget that this was three months before Pearl Harbor too... thank you FDR and America.)
Although Whaley might have been under the influence of the Texan I think that you underestimate the power of Hollywood in asserting that in 1941 normal British folk would not have used an Americanism. My Dad always called my Mum "honey," (she was not a tank by the way,) and he was hardly cosmopolitan. Apart from a government sponsored trip to North West Europe in 1944-45 he didn't leave Britain until the 1970s and never visited the USA.
Cheers,
Peter
Thank you for doing the research!
Fletcher of the tank museum has also expressed doubts about that nickname but it's good to see a source.
Here's the thing about the Sherman that I think a lot of people still don't get.
What is the point of having armor on a tank? What purpose does it serve?
Most of the European nations seemed to consider that the point of an armored tank was to retain the tank's ability to carry forward any given attack. In other words, the purpose of the tank's armor is to keep the TANK alive. Crew were viewed as components of the tank, to be replaced when they broke down.
American philosophy seems to have disagreed. The way the Sherman is designed tells me that American tank philosophy seemed to believe that the most significant role of a tank's armor is to keep its CREW alive. The tank wasn't built to be an easy kill, but its designers sacrifices things (especially increasing the bulk and height of the Sherman relative to other tanks) to enhance ergonimics and ensure crew survival and comfort in ways that seemed excessive to nations who saw the tank's crew as part of the accessories of the machine..
I'd say the results spoke for themselves. America entered the war with vast hordes of green tankers and maybe a scant handful with any direct armored combat experience, if that. But those tankers by and large survived the early fighting and became experienced. A few didn't make it, but America spent the war gaining experience and confidence in its style of armored combat while other nations, especially the Germans, had their tank force falling down around their ears. By Arracourt it was the Amercans who had the most battle-seasoned tank force in the world with the sole exception of the USSR
+hagamapama well men are harder to replace than tanks
And experienced men can do more with a bad tank than poorly trained or underexperienced crews can do with a great one.
hagamapama which is what happened to the germans late war
+hagamapama The 1st Tank were designed to withstand small arms fire, allowing a breakthrough of enemy lines. In particular the Trenches in Europe during WW 1. Since then the tanks have taken on a very diverse role. From Lightly armoured scouts and command vehicles, to Heavy, medium, assault, and the MBT. I think the term armoured fighting vehicle would be a better word than "Tank" in describing them now.
"Tank" has a definition within the group of AFV's. A tank, unlike some other AFV's (for example artillery-mission SPG's), is a self-contained armored fighting vehicle designed to fulfil certain mission parameters. Other AFV's can fulfil some of those paramaters, a group of other AFV classes could split those duties between them if need be, a few can do all or nearly all of them, and there's machines like the Swedish S-tank that blur the lines, but within the group of AFV's there will always be a need for per-se tanks.
Thank you for defending the sherman, I always argue with people who say it was a piece of crap.
it was a piece of crap
@@buzzkill808raven2 oooh don't cut yourself on your own edginess
@@an_f-14_tomcat don't be such a drama queen. The thing had about as much armour as a can of tuna. It's clear that brass was just using htem as cannon fodder
@PasoFreak success is subjective. I'd say a tank that needs 4-5, and often loses 3 or 4 of those, to take out one enemy tank, is pretty badly engineered.
@@buzzkill808raven2 when it gets ambushed by a tank purpose built to kill stuff like it? Say friend don't you love how it's suuuuper easy to transport a Tiger 2? Sooo many fit in Liberty Ships it's great. I really like when the crane on the Liberty Ship easily lifts the Tiger 2 suuuper easily. Man the American supply lines are flooded with everything but 75 and 76mm rounds. See the issue smartass?
Royal Army officer, Bob Crisp, 3rd Royal Tank Regiment - claims in his book, "Brazen Chariots" that it was he who, after being allowed (or requested) to take a newly recieved American M-3 Light Tank for a test drive, and being asked how it performed, remarked that "It's a honey!" That remark led to the nickname which the British gave it.
He also notes in his book that said driver hung around with the Texan manufacturer’s rep a lot.
A Sherman can give you a nice edge!
Woof Woof Woof
Oddball Crazy, like so many positive waves, we can't lose!
+Oddball Always with the negative waves, Moriarity
+Oddball Of course you only ride em, you do not know what makes them work. Perhaps you should drink some wine and eat some cheese, and maybe catch some rays?
+Oddball Great movie :)
+Oddball Hahahahahaha XDDD and it's a mother beautiful tank too
Very gratifying to see you step up and bust some myths.
I was aware of most of these and I do try and convey these points in discussions but there is such an unbelievable resistance to such ideas as that the US wasn't utterly stupid with tanks or that the Sherman wasn't the worst tank ever built.
I hope with a more authoritative sources like you, something a little closer to the truth will finally gain some traction.
I read the Zaloga interview with his three Tiger engagements in the ETO claim few months ago. I knew the broad stroke of it but that it was that extreme had me astounded. I hope others will enjoy that little gem of knowledge as much as I did. Thanks for putting that out there where the broader public will be more likely to learn of it.
Elmarby
Would you happen to have a link to that? The Zaloga interview?
WindmillStalker
Sure. I believe YT allows links these days?
tankandafvnews.com/2015/01/27/zaloga_interview/
Elmarby Cheers, mate!
+Elmarby
Zaloga is wrong. Very wrong. Hes not an authority on German armour or German armoured units movements, locations and engagements.
While the British and Canadians faced all the Tigers in Normandy (after which Tiger I production stopped and was replaced by Tiger II production) there were actually 2 sizeable units with Tiger Is in North West Europe after summer 1944, both of which engaged the Americans repeatedly over a 6 month period. Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel with 14 Tiger Is (later attached to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506) and Panzer- Abteilung 301 (Fkl) with 31 Tiger Is.
These 2 units engaged the American tanks on more than just 3 occasions in the months they were in operation. These 2 Tiger units fought in the autumn 1944 battles around Aachen and then in the Battle of the Bulge and then in the battles for the Rhine in early 1945, engaging American armour repeatedly.
In fact according to the combat diary of Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel, on the very same day that one of their Tiger Is knocked out the Pershing at Elsdorf on the 25th Feb 1945, Tigers of the same unit engaged Chaffees near Dormagen. So thats 2 separate engagements on the very same day.
On top of that, there were some ad hoc units near the end of the war with Tiger Is that engaged the Americans. For example, a Tiger I of Gruppe Fehrman, knocking out 3 American Shermans on one day, April 11th 1945, southwest of Hannover.
Thats 3 engagements already taken care of. I doubt anyone expects none of these Tiger I units engaged any other American armour in their 6 months of front line service hehe. They did. Repeatedly.
Cameron Burge
So when are you going to write an article or a book about it?
As a future reminder for myself, for when i want to find this masterpiece again:
-Significant emotional event: 31:55
Those Brit berets must have been padded. As a former tanker, I tell you the first time you rap your noggin on an interior plate while rolling will make you a believer in helmets.
Likewise, we have head ad nauseam "the Sherman is crap" and the T34 is "the greatest." The T34 is killing German tanks like crazy but the Sherman's rounds all bounce off. That's strange because the 75mm on the Sherman and the 76.2mm on the T34 have approximately equal muzzle velocity. Another myth?
The 76.2mm has higher velocity, but (not significantly) lower penetration for all munitions aside from APCR BR-360A (IIRC, Russian designation is weird).
A) which 76.2mm gun on the T-34 are you talking about, there's not just one
B) The T-34s engaged with the 76.2mm gun during 1940-1943 after that the T-34/85 was the main tank. So you really should be comparing the Sherman to the T-34/85, where it would be supremely outmatched outside of radio communication.
C) The German tanks had 30-50mm of armor frontal max during the outset of the invasion of the USSR. Upon the Normandy invasion, Pz IVs and the SPG based on them had 80mm of frontal armor almost universally, which unless within 500m the 75mm low velocity gun has issues dealing with.
D) The T-34 was a pre-war tank design. It was being produced when the M4 was only on the drawing board, yet the US still managed to only produce a tank that had similar capabilities to tank that was older than it.
@@Gustav_Kuriga In a very short amount of time, and then ship them across an ocean.
If one's going to compare a t 34/85 with the sherman, that sherman better be equipped with the 76mm
@@fulcrum2951 It's an appropriate comparison. I've heard many times, over the years, that the T-34-85 was in service before the M4 with 76-mm. Not significantly so; both of them came out at around the same time, just one had the added logistics of an ocean. There was also a lack of context that prevented them from being deployed on masse.
That being said, the Soviet 85-mm is still a superior gun. While the Soviet 85-mm and American 76-mm are comparable hole-punchers, the Soviet 85 has a far and away superior high explosive shell, making it the superior tank gun.
It was nice to actually have a guy go through and give a run down on the Shermans that was backed up by historical fact from actual military documents and had basically nothing in there based on his opinion. Were they the best tank of the war no, but are they as bad as everybody, especially the internet wants to make them out to be, not even close. Nobody can even bash you for being American bias because you pulled from both US and British sources. Very well organized and informative presentation.
P.S. Thank you for your military service! Watching you do the walk arounds on Inside the Chieftans Hatch, and listening to some of the terminology you use I always thought you served in the Royal Armor Corps. I never would have guessed you were an American tanker.
+Oliver66FarmBoy I believe he served in the Irish Military as well.
Hey there was a lot of opinion because most of his large claims could be contested.
Yea, most of it was opinion. I just saw a slideshow of pictures, not documents or audio clips to act as evidence.
Ah, the Sherman haters no matter facts don't matter to them just their biases. It really bothers them when those myth are proven wrong.
ARescueToaster 9:55ish thats a document
My father, a WWII tanker, commanded the Armor Board at Fort Knox, 1962-1965. One thing they were pushing then was ability to cross rivers, in the case of tanks, underwater. I (a high school senior) learned to SCUBA dive and assisted in them pulling the things out of Tobacco Leaf Lake several times. Later I joined the army as a tanker. Sent to OCS I came out as an artilleryman. My father was furious - like this was my fault. In Vietnam I was the artillery liaison for an armored cavalry squadron, and thanks to my (accidental) armor/artillery training, was (I think) very good at it.
odd detail, saw antiques roadshow (in the UK) a while ago, someone had brought in a notebook of an army officer with an excellent sketch in it clearly written under the sketch, "A knocked out tiger tank" It was an excellent drawing of a Panther. The antiques expert did not pick that out. Love watching this video. Keep it up.
At 41:45, maybe the British considered being pressed into a ground attack role to be "damaging to morale", but U.S. pilots were all too happy to shoot up anything they could find on the way back from a mission.
i imagine so, they shoved fifty cals on everything that moved and everything that didn't, imagine the fun you could have...
@@richpurslow3283 Especially the B-25, with that variant that replaced the bombadier with even more 50 cals
@@battleoid2411 yeah it was awesome, anything in front of it got shredded
@@battleoid2411 And a 75mm cannon.
@@battleoid2411 The B-25H, A-20 Havoc, and the P-38 Lightning were the main strafers on the Pacific front, while in Europe it was mostly the P-47, P-51, and the A-20.
I learned a lot. I'm surprised at how much of what I thought I knew about the Sherman isn't true.
Karo Karapetyan It's good you can admit it. Most people just want to hold onto their myths about the Sherman.
it's what Norman Mailor called "factoids"-things a lot of people know and believe because a lot of people keep repeating them!
I love that you accept that you makes mistakes at times and go back to fix them. Proud to watch your video's and follow you.
"Significant Emotional Event"- i.e., need spare underwear.
Yes for their funeral
I'd be interested in seeing a similar lecture focusing on the Eastern Front as well. Fascinating lecture none the less.
Me to! I hate how much flak the soviets get. A lot of people think that Enemy at the Gate is a historical representation of how soviet combat was (1 gun for __ soldiers). As I heard one historian say, Enemy at the Gate is a good historical fiction ranking with other great historical fiction like Pirates of the Caribbean
+tjohn6041 As I understand, Russians _hate_ the film. With passion. Still a decent war movie, but don´t ask for accuracy or realism, just entertainment.
+tjohn6041 The 1 rifle for every other Russian/Soviet soldier in Stalingrad is most likely a myth, but a myth based on a fact that there were Russian soldiers who often had only 1 rifle and a few cartridges to shoot with and then attacked well defended positions which often resulted in high losses with little to no gains - during WORLD WAR ONE.
^ With the exception being the Brusilov offensive, which had a mind-boggling scale of success in it's early stages (well by WW1 standards up to that point). The problem was, again, supply shortages. To give you a rough idea - and note this is WW1 pre-Stalinist Industrialization/Mechanization, snail paced production and manufacturing, Tsarist regime Imperial Russia we're talking about : At the start of the war in 1914, Russia had about (a bit more than) a quarter of a million shells of ammunition that'd been stockpiled for it's artillery. Russia was able to produce something like around 10,000-15,000 (I think a bit more) shells a month. Not too shabby, right?
They were firing up to about 30,000 artillery shells (at most) - EVERY DAY.
The 1 person shoots, the other picks up the rifle is very much exaggerated. Although there were shortages (Khrushchev alluded to them in his denunciation of Stalin following Stalin's death), they were never as bad as depicted in Enemy at the Gates (which appears to be treated as a primary source by basically everyone). The closest it got to that in Stalingrad was the assault of 13th Guards Rifle Division who'd been rushed into the battle because they were needed so much in the outnumbered 62nd Army. Only 9 in 10 men had rifles then, other than that, the weapon shortages are pretty much bollocks.
I know this is like, a year late, but there are two very good lectures, here on youtube, search for:
Why Germany Lost: The Three Alibis
The Soviet-German War, 1941-1945: Myths and Realities
As for the historian you should look for: David Glantz. Basically, this retired artillery colonel is THE Eastern Front historian you should look out for (he's the lecturer in the second video). He produced volumes and volumes of history of the Eastern Front, published and unpublished. He went into the archives, the primary sources in German and Russian.
"Most German generals didn't know Patton's name" because 90% were dodging Russian projectiles.
+brian brunner Or that they really did not have a reason to know about him unless they were directly fighting against his troops.
brian brunner lmfao
PrankCallsHotline Ah here's another myth wehrbs fall back to.
It didn't take us, the Germans litterally decided to take on the rest of the fucking world and got fucking beat into the ground.
Recommend you look up shit like the battle of Arracourt. Germans weren't ubermensch
Even less
Shirghazay Cowboys the Germans weren't invincible, but they were the strongest fighting force in the world during that time, and that deserves respect.
Even when they were whittled down to a fraction of their former selves after 5 years of fighting the entire world, the Germans were still putting up a fight such as in the Battle of Hurtgen Forest in 1945. They were outnumbered and a few months away from total defeat, but they still broke a western offensive and killed more than they lost.
For anyone wondering, yes Wikipedia did change its Tank destroyer battalion page.
I hate the fact that the M26 Pershing wikipedia page still states that the M26 wasn't wanted due to "Tank Destroyer Doctrine," and "Complacency," and they source Steven Zaloga's Armored Thunderbolt from *2008* as a source, versus all the modern information that's come out about it.
That's wikipedia for ya.
Then why don’t you change it, and add some sources. Anybody can edit it, you know. I don’t understand people who complain about wikipedia instead of making it better.
@@SearTrip 1. I don't care to figure out their policies and edit articles on Wikipedia.
2. It's already being debated in the Talk Section, which you could've gone and checked instead of making an honestly silly reply.
Excellent and informative.
I particularly liked the infromation that the Sherman did not catch fire more than other tanks, and that it was a myth that they were called ronsons.
Well they were called _Ronsons_, but not for that reason. That name was given to the Sherman Crocodile flame-tank.
Very intriguing and eye opening, even for a history enthusiast like myself. Thank you for putting a lot of this into perspective and using your own research instead of glorified gossip to back your findings.
So, I was in the area for my uncle's wedding and my brother and I checked out the FHC without knowing it was tankfest. I remember seeing your talk and until now, I had zero idea it was you until discovering your channel through Forgotten Weapons. Really great that the talk was filmed!!
Great show, we were there this year (2017) and loved it!
You know, I like how people who've only ever gone through 'facts' from secondary sources are trying to discount someone who's using primary research, it's like believing the word of the friend of a friend of a best friend, over someone who has talked to the best friend directly.
Just a funny thought.
In war, the people who were there on the battlefield can get it wrong, be it because of the fog of war, the chaos of the moment, or PTSD. The tacticians and strategists who plan out what was going to happen and the military personnel who put together information for military archives don't get it wrong.
StrikeNoir105E Nicholas was using a primary source.
they never got it wrong its the allies fresh paint after the war to cover up alll the fokkks ups they did
Not all primary sources are accurate or reliable, particularly those that are arse covering.
in many ways actually,real testing and Historian analysis is better than the straight story because that man's story is severely skewed by his narrow opinion and emotions that he was going through at the time,
a thus it their story Memoir.
I mean if i was in a sherman and i had my allied tanks explode around me with the crew members dying i'd have a negative opinion too, but they didn't see it from the german(which was just as bad) or the much worse the russian perspective.
Oh, If someday I could do the same as you do, but with WWII airplanes XDDD.
Excellent speech. WWII mythbusting is one of the things I love. So many people blindly believe stuff without looking for facts to know wether it's true or not.
ramjb Ram can you make a video like that? :) Perhaps make it a special edition of Jam with Ram (that I miss very much)
Titsonafish100 I can make a video like that. I won't, though. This kind of thing (presenting historical data in front of a crowd dispelling myths and putting things within a proper historical context) has to be done in person and looking to your audience to the eye. Because noone will jump in the listening crowd to say something stupid in front of everyone.
Do that in youtube however, and the comment section will see the lowest ebb of ignorants and fanboys coming in to troll the heck out of the video hidden under the anonymous nature of internet. I've had enough experience with that kind of stuff in videos where I was speaking of a plane in a game, go figure what would happen if I was speaking of a plane in an historical context. No way in hell I'm going to go through that.
ramjb I understand. Just remember that although you did receive a lot of crap, I guarantee that there were other people(like myself) who supported what you said and did. I miss the glory days of War Thunder too. Hope everything is going well Ram. Love ya!
I have a feeling your video on air combat myths would heavily feature the fw190
***** Add the P-47 to that (with the F4U Corsair a couple of not credited enough fighter models), and you've got a good list to begin with xD
Excellent and fascinating presentation - the basic reasoning concerning tank destroyer philoshophy in particular matches both British doctrine and the anatomy of the vehicles themselves.
As for "death trap" - the ease of escape is well illustrated by accounts of crews in normandy having Shermans shot out from underneath then going back for a replacement vehicle.
A great compilation of facts and refutations of myths. Interestingly, I have been reading through the book he mentions, "Death Traps".
Very good and interesting talk. Many of the points raised and myths exploded are familiar in context to me from my own naval research, where certain types of weapon are traditionally held to have been over-rated or outstandingly the best-thing-ever, and situational myths abound. Good primary research is a very wonderful and enlightening thing.
What I like best is that this, for me, helps to reconcile those disparities I always wondered about: How the T-34 was the best-tank-ever while the Sherman was 'tommy-cooker'; how the Allied tanks couldn't touch the Tiger and were slaughtered en masse in Normandy, yet still won though; and how Typhoons and Thunderbolts were clearing the path yet Allied tankers always had to fight German tanks in Western Europe.
This talk really clears it up to a point where anyone can understand and make sense of it.*
Thanks for the upload.
*That said, wargamers being what we are, many will still stick to the old myths, because old habits & internet etc... oh well.
+Andrew Givens the T-34 'the best tank ever' is another myth. Or vicious lie. Depending on your choice of wording. The raw numbers tell a different story.
You should also keep in mind: from the German POV the war was fought in the east.
methanbreather Amen to that. The very good operational overview in the book "When Titans Clashed" gives some sobering performance information on the Soviet formations, and it's very clear that, despite the T-34's vaunted reputation, the typical Soviet Tank Army wore out very, very quickly during offensives due to hellishly high attrition. The service life of a T-34 was short indeed. They just built lots.
For me, the classic over-rated weapon is the Ericsson Monitor vs the breastwork monitor; the former being held up as invincible since it only ever faced round shot of 32lb weight, while the latter is deemed by history as unsatisfactory and unseaworthy because it served with an ocean-going navy, despite being clearly the superior technology and not intended for blue-water deployments. It's always the same old story; I'm so glad amateur military historians don't have to investigate plane crashes!
+methanbreather who is better then t-34? Is be most time of ww2. if need to evolved is do thet.
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
The T-34 wasn't built to last, due to brutal calculus based on the service life of a typical Soviet tank during the war. On average, a Soviet tank spent a few months in service before it was knocked out, and of that few months just a few hours was in actual combat.
Excellent presentation.
I never get tired of major Moran's lectures.
Love the video. I never got a significant chance, as you, to tour and do research. what I did have was a plethora of tank books and research documents. For the most part, on my research, I came to many of the same conclusions as you, about the myths and misbeliefs about the sherman, but so many people just rip on it because of the common "knowledge". Thanks for the video, and the humor you tied in!
All that stooping for your notes... they should have given you a proper podium, Chieftain.
AFAIK the main reason for the difference in accuracy between US and British kill numbers for their air units is the way they recorded kills.
The British looked at gun camera footage and recorded kills based on that, the Americans recorded kills based on pilot claims and only afterwards adjusted those records based on gun camera footage, and then only if a claim was disputed.
As a result a British flight of 4 engaging and killing 8 vehicles out of a group of 10 would get attributed 8 kills. An American flight of 4 getting the same actual result might get attributed with 20 kills if each of the 4 pilots claimed 5 kills, even though they hadn't even engaged 20 targets, let alone destroyed that many.
Not true, the Americans required gun camera footage as well. And Gun camera footage can be easily misleading as well. The Soviets awarded kills based on it, and that had huge issues because just because you had the enemy plane under your pipper when you fired, didn't mean you disabled it. So kills were awarded on the basis of 'we have proof you probably hit it', rather than 'it was destroyed in combat and rendered unrecoverable'.
Nice to see General Devers get some recognition. A brilliant guy overshadowed by lesser Generals
Great work, thank you, always a pleasure to listen.
Thanks for this, so many people still believe the words of a mechanic who never even saw combat.
TheKsalad If you'd actually listened to the video, it was clearly stated that 'Death Traps' is a memoir and should be treated as such, not as a source of historical evidence. It is still an insightful and interesting read and should not just be written off because of this.
Ryan311a The problem, as pointed out, is that people -do- treat it as historical evidence, and not as a memoir.
Somillian An even bigger problem is when Death Traps is the ONLY book they read.
Somillian It IS historical evidence, just not historically accurate in all aspects.
En-Dian Neo Which means it's worthless and not representative of reality.
"Oh it's just a Sturmgeschütz, hey Joe we don't need you and your buddy. We will make this fair, we will make this 3 to 1."
Always loved the Sherman. Nice to hear these myths about it debunked.
It's mostly Wheraboos online that dump on it.
Loved this video!!! My cousin Lorne served in the RCD in WW2. He assured me that the" Ronson" nomenclature was a Canadian creation, as Canadian's carried Ronson lighters, manufactured in Canada. I love the fact that you identified the loading hooks as the most important feature of the Sherman. The U.S. forces being everywhere, literally, in the world meant that their needs were significantly different than any other military. Contrary to some of the attacks made on the Sherman, of late, Lorne said that they were easy to operate, get out of, and fight in. The crews knew that when an arms carrier was coming it would have the 75mm, and later the 76mm would, in fact, have the ammo they needed. The 17 pounder, he also felt was a TD, given it had no dedicated MG in the bow (gun, not car). I wish Lorne, my Dad, and Grandpa were alive to have viewed this. I'm sure it would've given them a smile. Thanks so much... you've made this grandpa, WoT player and amateur treadhead (we call them zipperheads in Canada, due to frequent zippers found on various parts of the skull due to bangups with turret hatches, periscopes and other low hanging paraphenilia found around the hatches.) I served in the infantry, as a ground and gravel tech... When guys in a foxhole are in trouble they generally call on two things... God and Armour.
Point taken, but I don't recall seeing a lot of Crusaders, and Churchills in the Arctic, or SE Asia... just saying.
I must admit, I considered myself somewhat knowledgeable about WWII armor, but this was very revelatory for me. I'd love to see a bit more detail about the different statistics, etc., that were gathered!
Ooooh baby another Chieftain video
Great video, very enlightening especially for all of us who grew up w/these myths printed in almost every WWII history book or shown in movies as facts. It had allways seemed after reading such histories that we won the war in spite of the sherman. But with the documents that The Cheiftan has brought to light it really makes the sherman seem to be totally adequet for the role it served. I'm very glad to have watched this as its drasticly changed my opinion of the shermans combat role, especially offensively. TY for posting
1 Million Views!!! Congratulations Chieftain!!!
The British most definitely (and unofficially) called the M-3 Stuart the "Honey" tank in April 1942 as there is at least one official operational record document that refers to the Stuart as "The Honey". That document is the Operational Record Book of No. 6 Squadron RAF (The Flying Tin Openers (later Can openers)) who during that month started conversion to the Hurricane IID with the 40mm Vickers S Gun in a dedicated Anti Tank Role.
The following line is in their ORB for April 1942 reads.
"18 April 1942.
Captain J. PEARSON and Captain W. TAYLOR-YOUNG arranged a visit for all pilots to the Greys where their General Grant and “Honey” tanks were inspected."
The two Captains mentioned were British Army officers from No. 7 A.I.L. section attached to the RAF Unit. The Greys are most likely the Scots Royal Greys who were working up with the two tanks at the time.
Later entries covering the Operations carried out by the squadron between June and December lists Stuarts being used by the Axis forces engaged by the Squadron as Honeys and there is a reference within one of the entries that states that a Honey is in fact a Stuart.
The hate I've gotten from simply saying the Germans didnt really know about Patton is insane.
I'm in the last pages of "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. This lecture was very enlightening. If you enjoy reading about live on the front lines I highly recommend "Death Traps."
But Cooper was not on the front lines.
He was assigned maintenance detail with _M4's,_ at least from I know of him, on only two instances.
Very interesting and informative. I do have a personal anecdote about Ronson..My father Robert G. Frey was a Spec. 4 in Co. E 373 Engineers US ARMY from 1942 - 1945. One of the treasures he brought home was his Ronson but it was not plated, it was just plain copper. When I asked him about this he told me that they were issued these lighters with the promise that if they made it home, Ronson would chrome plate them for free.
"a significant emotional even" i'm still laughing :D
Jokes like these are why i prefer him over the Challenger if i ever have a choice :D
I like them both , not really a contest just they do things in there own way.
Chieftain actually cares about history while the other just spews these same myths Chieftain tries to debunk. I think I know which one I prefer
Teutone Where was that.
Nerd
some actual facts. thank you sir
I’ve been to the tank festival twice, I’m so happy to see this tank festival on CZcams :)
Thanks for posting this. Nice bit of research and at the end of the day he caused me to rethink a lot of what I thought was true about these issues.
It is interesting to read so many comments about what ChieftainWoT did NOT say. Here are the actual Myths he discusses (please note that he DOES NOT state in this video that the Sherman was a "better tank" than a Panther or Tiger II. If it was or was not, he does not say in this video).
Notes for this post:
- here "tank" refers to "US Sherman". I'll use Panther or Panzer or something else to refer to other thanks).
- Whenever possible I use ChietanWoT's exact words in quotes.
- I am not defending what he says in the video, merely codifying what he did say vs what people seem to 'hear' (e.g. that Sherman tanks were the best).
Myth #1 Names of Tanks
- I really do not care much about this one. Leave it to somebody else to discuss.
Myth #2 Tanks were infantry support weapons and NOT anti-tank weapons. (FALSE)
- Tanks were anti-tank weapons as part of infantry support.
- Tanks were indeed, very often engaged vs enemy tanks.
at 8:40 Myth #3 Tank Destroyers (were primarily used to destroy enemy tanks) OR
Tank Destroyers (were the primary weapon actually used to engage tanks)
- They were the 'best' at destroying tanks.
- The doctrine was to 'ambush' enemy tanks but this very often not the engagement.
- Tank Destroyers fought whatever the particular battle dictated. This was very often infantry or whatever.
Myth #4 The Pershing Tank COULD have been in production earlier.
- No. Due to design and development problems it was not ready for production.
- No. Too many technical problems to be worked out. For an example, he cites the German Panther which was rushed to production before problems could be ironed out. This led to many instances of Panthers breaking down in the field without even entering battle.
Myth #5 Shermans had the 75mm due to HE capability or doctrine.
- Not really.
- The 75mm performed fine vs Panzer III's and IV's in North Africa.
- US high command had contingency plans for stronger gun but none that worked well enough due to technical and logistical problems.
- Panther was first encountered in Russian Theater in July '43.
- 75mm was deemed good enough and turned down by field tank commanders as late as May '44 because it was successful in Italian campaign.
Myth #6 "Firefly" Sherman was the "Best" Sherman. (FALSE)
- The 17 pounder (17p) was declined by US because tests indicated 90mm was better. So the US wanted to use the 90mm. Did use 90mm as towed anti-tank gun.
- Tests in US indicated that the 17p gun was not really much more effective vs german armor in practice.
- 17p sabo rounds were very inaccurate (in US tests).
- 17p gun turret was severely cramped as to render the tank less combat effective.
- Why does this myth exist?
- Cites that in the field, the 17p was the only tank mounted gun that could, under good circumstances, punch a hole in the Panther front armor. (POSTERS NOTE: ** This seems to conflict with his discussion of the Myth so I'm a little confused regarding this one **)
Myth #7 It took 5 Shermans to kill 1 Panther
- False.
- It was simply doctrine that the entire platoon (consisting of 5 Shermans) would engage the enemy when possible.
- Actual NorthWest European Statistics American Tankers engaged Tiger I's directly only 3 times. The results:
(First) Shermans won (I'd like more details here).
(Second) Pershing Lost.
(Third) Tiger I's were being loaded onto train so an odd engagement.
- Real World Performance. In the Aracourt battle:
- 20 Shermans were knocked out
- 80 Panthers were knocked out
-** However, Chief states that battle is NOT only tanks vs tanks.**
@31:50 Chief cites a study which showed that
-** The winner of a battle between Panther and Sherman "usually" was whoever fired first. And that the US studies showed that the Sherman was 3.6 times as effective than the Panther.
34:00 Myth #8 Sherman tank was a death trap
- No. Studies show that it had very good escapability (roomy and a well designed hatch) and good enough armor.
- Most fires were caused by ammunition in the tank and not fuel (Sherman had gasoline engine whereas most tanks were diesel).
- The British tankers wore no helmets (just berets) and often overstocked shells.
- It was statistically far more dangerous to be a rifleman than a tanker.
@40:22 Myth # 9 Tactical Air Killed Tanks
- Not nearly as much as is usually believed. Not borne out through statistical analysis.
- Very over reported by pilots.
- Allied Tactical Air was NOT effective against tanks BUT was very effective vs tank support units. And many people under value the importance of tank support units (trucks, infantry, etc).
44:30 Conclusion
- US Armored Effectiveness a victim of bad press.
- The Sherman was not that efffective vs Panther or Tiger II BUT this was fairly rare. Rare enough to not be an important factor.
- Chief talks about war, battle and the fact that a tank in WWII was simply one part of the machinery of war. In this respect the Sherman was very effective.
Again, (if you're bothered to read this far), these are not my views necessarily, I am simply trying to write down what Chief said in the vid.
Re:fireflies in myth 6. It was the British who brought them, not the Americans. Americans brought Shermans mounted with the 75mm M3. That's the settling of that contradiction.
For the record, since the 75mm M3 was the gun fielded by most American tanks in the Western Front, the theoretical top gun, the 76mm M1, gets a bad rap. The M1 was nearly a match for the 17pdr as a penetration gun.
But Americans didn't bring the 76, they brought the much weaker shorter caliber 75, because they thought they'd mostly be fighting dug in infantry and wanted the superior HE performance. Not the right decision, but it's tough to be too hard on them because the bocage was a great place for infantry ambushes and it's easy to imagine needing direct fire artillery more than antiarmor weapons.
Also worth noting -- it was the Americans with their dual purpose weaponry (HE/AP) that broke through German defenses first and did most of the work encircling German lines at Argentan while the British, focused as they were on antiarmor weapons, got bogged down.
And it was Canadians armed with American equipment that completed the encirclement too IIRC.
Being able to slaughter infantry as a primary focus of armor's role, may just convey enough of a combat advantage to offset mediocre antiarmor performance after all.
Your summary does a great service to the internet and world civilization
Just a nitpick at your excellent synopsis, but most tanks used gasoline engines in the war. The only diesels that come to mind are the USMC Shermans and the T-34. Probably others, but the Germans used gasoline too.
hagamapama
"Also worth noting -- it was the Americans with their dual purpose weaponry (HE/AP) that broke through German defenses first and did most of the work encircling German lines at Argentan while the British, focused as they were on antiarmor weapons, got bogged down. "
You obviously know very little about what actually occurred with regards to the strategy of breaking out of the bocage and Hitler's insane 'counter attack' against the US with the Mortain counter offensive which was smashed and severely weakened the german forces facing the US forces at Argentan.
1. you're talking bollox;
2. the British planners had made absolutely NO allowance for the Normandy bocage;
3. the strategy that allowed the US to breakthru is known as the hammer and anvil. The Zulus, Alexander the Great and Hannibal used the same strategy;
You pin the enemy's toughest units by keeping pressure upon them, this allows other units to smash through the weaker flank and thus, create the Falaise pocket [massacre] or 'kessel'. If the British didn't keep the majority of the German anti-tank and combined arms forces fixed in place, constantly having to take on British assaults to stop them breaking through, then there would have been enough units pulled from the British part of the front to nip off any US breakthru. There would have been NO breakthrough or, more accurately, there WOULD have been a breakthrough but it would have been cut off and annihilated by the German Panzer forces the British Armoured Forces weren't pinning down. [I have the distinct impression you won't grasp this concept]
Brooke and Montgomery actually planned this strategy. The US armed forces were meant to be the first into Paris, as Eisenhower would have taken over complete command at that point and America wanted to get the glory for donating.. sorry sorry sorry... for LENDING everybody tanks and cash at such humongous interest rates. yes. yes.
But the French demanded that, since France was a French country, then the French Shermans [snigger] should be allowed to get the glory ride.
To say the British 'got pinned because of anti-armour weaponry' is laughable. I mean... seriously??? I think you're dragging the 'Matilda II argument' from North Africa on a couple of years on too long! A firefly was only 1 Sherman out of every 5. That means that British Shermans carried mostly 75mm dual purpose cannons. And the 17 pounder fired HE rounds as well as AP. Update your info, mate.
British Infantry also attacked the German Panzers and A-Tk gun positions and took horrendous losses whilst the Canadians kept up pressure upon another side so the German's best panzer forces and motorised units were held in reserve expecting the Canadians to make a breakout... Hitler was utterly convinced the US forces weren't capable of a breakout.
Lucky for us that he was such a bloody idiot. AND, as I explained, it was lucky for us all that he figured using his precious 116.Pz [Greyhound Div], Panzer Lehr [Elite Pz Div w Tiger Abt], 2.Pz, 2 Waffen SS Pz Divs[Das Reich and Hohenstaufen?] w several Motorised Divisions Reserves to counter attack the US Forces at Mortain and they were decimated. When they attacked, every US Sherman and TD Bttn as well as Artillery unit AND a massive ground attacking Army Air Force so destroyed them that when Hitler phoned the CO of the 116.Pz Div and demanded that his men 'fight to the last man', the CO cried,
"I can assure you, mein fuhrer, that every last man has done his duty.. down to the last man" and promptly hung up. The 116.Pz Div was no longer in existence. This was the battle were several black TD and Artillery units did most of the destruction and Patton admitted he "had gotten the black man wrong... they make damn fine soldiers!"
IF Hitler had held these in reserve to bite off any Allied breakthru then there certainly wouldn't have been one. Every German general KNEW that the Mortain counter was a failure before they even moved .. which they hardly did once the US tanks and air power spotted them. they were destroyed without moving very far. Cheers, Hitler, old chap!
Chieftain didn't mention the destruction of an ENTIRE Tiger I company in Northern France as it moved between 2 Canadian Sherman [75mm] Coys positioned either side of it. A Typhoon was flying overhead so it's likely the Tigers buttoned up to avoid splash fire from the inaccurate rocket fire but, nevertheless, the 2 Coys of Shermans [one in hulldown position] utterly destroyed every Tiger present, including Michael Wittmann's Tiger [which turret was 30m away from the hull... well, if I was in a Sherman armd with a 75mm I think I wouldn't stop firing until every single Tiger was actually burning].
A fine example of whomever gets the first shot in is at an advantage. The Canadian Shermans were also in cover and a degree of panic from the Tigers, as they were exploding, I suppose, as they were likely supposing the fire was coming from a group of rocket firing Typhoons when the Typhoon's single rocket missed every Tiger though kept flying overhead, led to the ambushes' success.
The range was within 2-300 yards and with the Tigers being buttoned they likely had no idea that the destructive fire was coming from the ground. No Shermans were even fired at [I believe]... certainly no Shermans were lost.
Thank you, Canadian tankers, for having such balls!
#Shame your descendants all turned into gollum lookalikes whinging about being called 'queen' or 'they' or 'humbug' just because they get triggered like the entitled, crying babies in girls' blouses they have all become!
The Shermanand its German opponents were built for different purposes. The Germans had Hitlers idea of the biggest and strongest being best-so big gun, lots of armor, relatively low powered engine and, increasingly, no ball-bearings. Hoocares if hey squeak?If day is big und stronger?!
6:42 I was told the British DID come up with the name "honey"--not referring to the sticky sweet stuff directly, but to the British vernacular for a desirable woman, which they call a "honey". They liked the M3 so much they called it one "honey of a tank". Also spelled "hunny", meaning anyone dear to you is called "hunny". M3 was "dear" to the British soldier who used it in battle.
I never knew about the Ronsen lighter trademark being form post-WW2. That's good to know. I was an Ordnance officer, and spent a lot of time in the ORD museum so some of the stuff you're going over, I read a while back (and you're right, most of it is in no books).
Just watched this,and it was an eye opener.
28:40 I've always wondered where to find this manual. It's something I've been saying to my friends for the longest time in multiple different games that involve combined arms warfare, "Our guns aren't penetrating, charge!"
I just hope it isn't a joke flying over my head so that I can finally prove that it isn't my fault the tank keeps dying when I'm doing exactly what should be done.
FM 17-13 of 1942, page 149. www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM17-30.PDF
@@TheChieftainsHatch Thank you so much, now I have complete justification for my tank driving methods.
I also can't believe like many others that there were only 3 direct tank battles against tiger1's... But if it is true then the psychological impact of tiger1 is even more astounding and EXTREM than I ever thought...
After Normandy...
Hi. Its not true. There were far more than 3.
While the British and Canadians faced all the Tigers in Normandy (after which Tiger I production stopped and was replaced by Tiger II production) there were actually 2 sizeable units with Tiger Is in North West Europe after summer 1944, both of which engaged the Americans repeatedly over a 6 month period. Schwere kompanie Hummel with 14 Tiger Is (later attached to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506) and Panzer- Abteilung 301 (Fkl) with 31 Tiger Is.
These 2 units engaged the American tanks on more than just 3 occasions in the months they were in operation. These 2 Tiger units fought in the autumn 1944 battles around Aachen and then in the Battle of the Bulge and then in the battles for the Rhine in early 1945, engaging American armour repeatedly.
In fact according to the combat diary of Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel, on the very same day that one of their Tiger Is knocked out the Pershing at Elsdorf on the 25th Feb 1945, Tigers of the same unit engaged Chaffees near Dormagen. So that's 2 separate engagements on the same day.
On top of that, there were some ad hoc units near the end of the war with Tiger Is that engaged the Americans. For example, a Tiger I of Gruppe Fehrman, knocking out 3 American Shermans on one day, April 11th 1945, southwest of Hannover.
Thats "3" engagements already taken care of. I doubt anyone expects none of these Tiger I units engaged any other American armour in their 6 months of front line service.
Tigers in Combat Volume I page 459.
Panzerabteilung (Fkl)301. This unit had 31 Tiger Is:
19/11/44. Employment with attached Pzkp (Fkl) 319 in the area of Merzenhausen, Counterattack of the 1st company and Pzkp (Fkl) 319. The 1st company knocks out 4 Shermans.
20/11/44. Enemy attack on Merzenhausen. The 1st company and Pzkp (Fkl) 319 counterattack. Heavy losses to the latter.. Several enemy tanks destroyed.
21/11/44. The second company suffers 2 losses.
22/11/44. Employment of the 3rd company with the 3rd Panzergrenadierdivision. The 1st company is in action with 3 Tigers on the hill between Lohn and Putzlohn. 2 Shermans are knocked out.
I HAVE ALREADY GONE BEYOND 3 ENGAGEMENTS IN JUST 4 DAYS IN NOVEMBER 1944 ALONE.
There were other engagements between Tiger Is and American armour besides just that week in November north east of Aachen.
For example, Panzerabteilung (Fkl)301 mentions an engagement on 6th December 1944 where its Tiger Is knock out 11 Shermans near Birkesdorf (north of Duren). There are plenty of other engagements and attacks mentioned in the combat diary but not specific about how many further enemy tank knock outs they managed. However it is a fair bet that this Tiger I unit engaged American armour plenty of other times. The last engagements of Panzerabteilung (Fkl)301 were near Witten, by the River Ruhr on 10th April 1945.
Schwere Panzerkompanie Hummel (also with Tiger Is) took part in heavy fighting against the Americans from Aachen in early November 1944, through to the Ardennes (it was attached to Schwere Panzer Abteilung 506 as it's 4th company for 2 months), then near Cologne (it was a Tiger I from this unit that knocked out the Pershing at Elsdorf in Feb 1945) and finally east of the Rhine, where the last engagements of it's Tiger Is against the Americans took place in April 1945 in the areas of Altena/Werdohl/Grevenbruck near the River Lenne.
Cameron Burge It refers to US Armored Forces. Not to mention Zaloga quotes "officially".
Not that I agree with the number, and knowing it was higher. But still for what he could find, there are only 3 that can be referred to as a source because of the photos we have that we know it was a Tiger.
But great research though.
The Chief in a later reply stated that personally, he believes there are more than 3 but less than 10 documented encounters with Tiger Is. He was citing a source in this presentation.
Curtiss Kittyhawk
What were those 2 Tiger I units in the American sectors doing for 5 months then??
The research on how new equipment is developed, reviewed, approved, and produced explained well why major changes in military hardware can take a while. I can imagine working with multiple research and ordinance teams, each with different opinions and ways of evaluating equipment, would get fairly frustrating.
Nick love your videos and your articles. Keep up the the awesome work. :D
Wow. This is one of the most interesting and educational presentations I've ever seen. Didn' realise how many 'facts' I thought I knew was actually false. Fantastic presentation/speech!
30:43 I heard this, laughed so hard I spat on my computer, look that up, and found out it was REAL. I swear, I almost fell into a laughter-induced coma.
Awesome lecture. I particularly liked the information that the US had the option of the 76mm tank but they felt they did not need it. Also how ineffective Close Air Support was.
This is a fantastic brief. Deserved a projector and a podium!
It's nice to see someone with actual research and detail counter the Tiger fanboys on CZcams. There are dozens of hype videos claiming that one Tiger tank defeated an entire divisions' worth of Shermans while the crew inside laughed hysterically and ate strudel.
The millennial wehraboos are so annoying.
This is so informative. I've been lied to all these years. Apparently Shermans were great tanks.
Nope, they weren't great tanks, they were good tanks. Good enough. As the war progressed they got incrementally better though. By the end of the war, if you were an American tanker, in a Sherman A3E2 Jumbo, you were actually in a great tank. The A3E2's only problem was there were only 250 built, that and it was heavy - but it could stop an 88 frontal shot. However, if you were in an A3E8 "Easy 8" you were also in a very good tank and I think in terms of reliability, maneuverability, firepower, and survivability, I would choose that over any other tank in WWII. So yeah, maybe you're right and they ended up being great tanks.
Dummy drive them into battle and face tigers then if yoy are so sure
@@typehyuga607 They didn't face many Tigers except on extremely rare occasions. Large majority of the Tiger tanks were sent to fight the Soviets. Later model Shermans could penetrate Tiger's frontal armor without much problem because it wasn't sloped.
I'd rather drive a Sherman at a tiger than a T-34 at one
Practically everything in this video I did not know, thanks for this!
My favorite video from The Chieftain!