@@ryanlewis6344the fact that you referred to the information in this clip as "facts" is what really worries me about this video (the fact that people believe this is actual, factual information). Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING presented in this video is factual. This video is nothing but completely fabricated nonsense. Not a single fact was declared in the making of this video.
And also those of us who actually do their fucking research. More than 4,000 M4A2 Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union by the end of the war. They referred to them as Emchas, from the first letter and number of its alpha-numeric designation (M-4 in Russian in M-chetyrye). There were positive and negative things that the Soviets pointed out. Negatives being the tall profile, sliding in mud and snow, and thin side armor. Soviet tankers were, however, able to wrap barbed wire around the tracks which helped in the snow and mud. Earlier models had tendencies to burn up when hit, which was due to the placement of the ammunition in the sponsons. Later models had an improved ammunition layout that reduced the likelihood of fires. The Soviets also had many praises about the Sherman. The 76 mm gun was well received. Compared to the T-34, it was easier to control and was more resilient during long marches, as well as being more comfortable. The HVSS suspension in later models was much better in rougher terrain than the VVSS suspension of older models. The cupola of M4A2(76)W models was worth taking inspiration from. Components like the Oilgear turret traverse motor and the M10 periscope were studied in detail. The stabilizer was well received. When activated, the gunfire was twice as accurate at a speed of 15kph and five to six times better at 25kph. The crews even enjoyed the many gifts that were found in their Shermans after being transported such as bottles of whiskey. Both Guards and regular units received them. The Shermans saw combat in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, and even Manchuria. They even played a significant role in the Battle of Berlin. One example was the 1st Mechanized Corps, which had over 150 M4A2 Shermans. The Corps attacked the city from the north-east then skirted around the periphery to strike the south, before advancing eastward towards the city center. Overall, the Sherman was well-liked by Soviet crews. Sources: “Sherman Tanks of the Red Army: The American Vehicle in Soviet Service” by Peter Samsonov “Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks: The World War ll Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza” I also recommend RedEffect’s video on Soviet Shermans.
@@jankutac9753 APHE was not really significantly more effective than solid AP was. Shermans had rounds stored in a hard to hit location and the lower brinell hardness armor stopped much of the spalling. There's a reason Sherman tanks had the lowest crew mortality rate of any of the main tanks in WW2
@@Warthundered230 the photos are ugly, wierd looking, and dont help, none of these photos look like even close to real life equippment they look like a bunch of plates stacked ontop of eachother
Shermans had a reliable drive train. The engine ran well on Russian fuel. The high explosive rounds for the main gun were highly effective. The interior was quite roomy and warm in the winter. And yeah, crew survivability was good.
The T34s armor was heat treated at higher temperatures than the other countries armor was making the T34 have really brittle armor that would crack when hit, also sending pieces of the armor or “spalling” flying through the tank, I think that’s what he means by non exploding.
@@Liam-uq7rb pls don't be so rude i was only trying to show that you don't need to whatch YT to know that the U.S.S.R. heat treated tank armour to a temp that made the metal brittle. I am sorry if my original comment was rude or offended you in any way.
This is not very realistic of the tanks design. The Sherman’s armor was not intentionally made soft. And the Sherman was a medium tank with little in the way of armor like most medium tanks until very late in the war with the start of the jumbo. While being one of the best tanks of the war it mainly gained that from reliability and crew comfort. The anti tank weapon used was likely a 37mm door knocker with some type of high capacity shell. Or a 5cm anti tank weapon. With the explosive filter of the shell most likely being rendered ineffective on impact or having the detonator shatter. Or was a round more similar to solid shot.
The front armor of the M4 was actually rather difficult to penetrate. It wasn't very thick, but it was well angled. Panthers often had to hit them 3 times to get 1 shell through.
The Red Army also loved the Shermans for their leather seats. In fact, they actually had to station guards to prevent the lootings of the leather materials.
@@ideges-smasszeryou would think that maybe someone in charge would go. Hey maybe we should put better seats in our tanks and someone probably did and then someone more important went, we do not need comfy tanks. Comfy tanks are for non-disposable people
M4 pros : much better ergonomics,quick turret traverse, gun stabilization. T34 pros : diesel-engine(bigger range and less inflamable), wider tracks(better in mud and snow)
Uh... T-34 actually burned more often than M4 Sherman. The Fuel Fire Issue is a myth. Over 90% of Tank hits were front or sides, not rear. US ETO Officers actually investigated that and found a white flame always proceeded catastrophic fires. And Fuel Fires don't create that white flame, but ammunition does.
I have read that the lower frontal glacis held the transverse transmission, which if “lucky” also functioned as “additional” armor. The primary function of that placement was to facilitate ease of repairabilty, with the armor function being a bonus -sometimes.
Memories of the ONE tank commander do not means than entire Red Army preferred Western tanks above Soviet tanks. In reality many Soviet crews did not likes Sherman for big height and lower ability to drive on the hard terrain then T-34. Kinda ironic, than the only tank, which almost did not had critique from Soviet crews, was Valentine.
Where did the Sherman's end up in Soviet usage? Guards Armored units. The best of the survivors of the early battles got Sherman's so as to help them stay alive longer.
@@danconnolly2341 Soviet regiments got their Guard status not for the biggest percentage of survivors, but for exceptional achievements and victories. For your logic, Guard status would got only regiments, who fought only against secondary German allies, like Italians or Romanians, lol, because it was easiest enemy and caused less losses at the start of the war. Besides, again, SOME Guard regiments had Shermans, but majority of the Guard tank divisions had heavy IS-2 with T-34 support. Some penal battalions had land-lease tanks in amond their stuff - does it mean, that Soviets tried to kill with those rolling coffins as fast as possible, lol? Besides, M4 Sherman did not had any advantages for survival. It was much bigger in size, better target for enemy AT guns, worse hard terrain tolerance (ya know, there are no roads in Russia - only directions), and also when it broken, it was MUCH harder to find proper parts for repairing.
@@Goran1138 You are incorrect. The M4 Sherman tank had a very high survivability rate, it was easy to escape when damaged. The T-34 on the other hand, was a death trap. Soldiers could not easily escape the cramped interior of the tank. And poor quality armor was a problem with the T-34, often times when it was hit with a shell the metal interior would spall and shower the crew with pieces of shrapnel. Soviet tank crews that operated the Sherman praised it for it's reliability, ease of maintenance and superior ergonomics compared to the T-34. Guards units were given priority to get the best equipment, and many were issued the Sherman tank. As a matter of fact, the first Soviet unit that entered Berlin was equipped with Sherman tanks.
The M3 & M4 were both roomy tanks that were very reliable. Contrary to post war, Soviet propaganda, the M3 Lee was actually quite popular with the Russian troops. The M4s saw quite a bit of action in Russia right up to the end of the war.
@@CentristDad155 No they're not!!! You was ever in a T34???? Not!!! I was, still working in 1988. We did our basic training on T34!! So, shit the f..k up with your bullsh1t propaganda! All kind of 1d10ts citing all kind of internet non-sense are "great specialists">>>> GFYS 1d10t!
@@CentristDad155 The lack of situational awareness was because of the two man turret, in which the gunner had the role of the commander, in addition to the lack of a cupola, or the lack of sufficient vision slits. At least they noticed these problems and were solved with the release of the T-34-85
Yeah...no, Panzer IV was at best equal and in some ways (mobility and turret traverse speed) inferior to the Sherman. That was the most common tank Sherman's encountered until very late in the war when the outcome was no longer in doubt. Panther had some qualities that were well advanced over the stock Sherman but the quality control and the crews by the late war time period led to almost even loss rates. Tiger was another thing altogether, but so rare as to not have a real impact in the western theater.
*kinetic and German AT guns were generally more reliant on APHE rounds as opposed to APCR rounds as a result of the scarcity of tungsten (the primary component of the core) throughout the war.
Soviet tanks were often better than anything the Americans can muster, with tanks such as the KV-1 or IS/JS-2. They were far more reliable than the German cats for sure.
While I can't verify this story in particular, I do know outside the M3 Lee, which the Soviets hated due to being too tall, American tanks where recieved much better than even late war T-34s. In terms of advantages, the Sherman's ergonomics where far better than the T-34s, with better Gun, driver, radio operator, and commander periscopes, and better gunner sights than the T-34, to the point the Soviets would often lift the Sherman's sights and install them on T-34s if the Sherman was rendered destroyed or burned out. Another big advantage they enjoyed was maintenance, something often overlooked. German and Soviet tanks tended to have less reliable parts, the idea being that you could run parts harder, or produce more of them. If a critical part breaks, you just put it on a train home, and it would be fixed in a factory with dedicated tools. The Americans couldn't do this, due to having to ship everything over the Atlantic or Pacific, so Shermans where designed to have their parts not only last, but be easily replaceable in the field with the same equipment used to refit basic trucks and halftracks in the field. What this meant is Soviet Sherman units could often recover and repair their Sherman the same day it was knocked out, even replacing entire engine blocks with T-34 engines in the field, using only tractor engine hoists. T-34 crews often had to wait an average of 3 days before recieving a replacement T-34, as even transmission replacements took a long time to do in the field, and where often considered to not be worth the hassle by Soviet commanders.
The Soviets got a lot of early Shermans, which had the narrow tracks that gave less traction. Also, the rubberized coating on the M4's tracks was very nice for use on Western European roads, but not very helpful on icy and muddy Russian fields. The T-34, for all its many faults, had wide tracks from the get-go, and the waffle pattern tracks were superb in winter.
@@ostiariusalpha Sherman Rubber Brush tracks where easily removed, it was just a simple spray on coating, which didn't really affect it's ability to cross mud, or the improvised roadways used during large tank movements. Especially considering the rubber brush was 1/16th and inch in thickness. The Soviets also didn't particularly complain about it's ability to cross mud, at least not anymore than they did about the T-34. Because the Bogie suspension was a 6 wheeled, as opposed to the Christie suspension on the T-34 sporting 5 wheels. So ground pressure per square inch was similar, which funnily enough, both are still more than the Tiger's, who's main issue wasn't "getting stuck in the mud" but mud getting into the leaf wheels of the Tiger. Both the Sherman and T-34 suffered in the mud, like all tanks even to this day, but neither had it particularly worse than the other.
@@Mikalent No, ground pressure between the two was most definitely _not_ the same. Ground pressure is determined by how much track is touching the ground, not by how many wheels you have. And there is plenty of records of Soviet tankers liking the Sherman, but noting that it had less traction than the T-34s they had also driven.
@@ostiariusalpha With ground Pressure, the number of wheels does matter, they are what transfers the weight on the tank to the ground. For simplicity sake, if you have 120 pounds, if you spread it on 5, 1 inch points of contact, each 1 inch point will be transferring 24 lbs to the ground, as opposed to 6 points of contact, which transfer 20 lbs per point. Track length does not matter, because the tracks are not a single piece, but dozens of smaller pieces linked together, so any track not directly in contact with one of the wheels isn't a primary weight bearer. It's a secondary weight brearer, because it will eventually help spread out the weight if the ground pressure of the primary weight bearing track section (IE the ones in direct contact with the leaf wheels) sinks the ground to a certain point. The width of the tracks did help, but again, points of ground contact via the leaf wheels does matter. Because at least what I have read of Russian crew of both the T-34 and Sherman, that has not been disproven, states they had roughly similar rates of failure in mud crossing, especially once you factor in that the Soviets where getting the pacific track upgrades(designed for a lot worse conditions than Russian mud) almost immediately.
@@Mikalent No, bud. The wheels transfer weight to the track and the track transfers weight to the ground. This is why someone wearing skis can stand on snow that you would sink into if you were only wearing boots; as long as the weight is the same, the number of legs on the skis doesn't matter. Please re-educate yourself on how tanks work.
At the time they first ran into them in 1941, Guderian and Kleist both proclaimed the T34 the finest tank in the world. Can’t get a higher endorsement than that.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 from what I have read, KV-1 was too heavy, it had a bad transmission and it was too difficult to operate, so the Soviets ceased its production in 1942.
They were a lot more comfortable, had higher survival rates and due to not being built by farmers making constant shortcuts to meet dead lines in the ural mountains were built to a higher quality. On paper, the T-34 wasnt that bad of a tank, if cramped and had a few issues. But russian officers woulr hold strict deadlines, and often the workers were untrained in things such as welding. Due to these deadlines, theyd make shortcuts, such as not putting rubber in places, not giving the gunner a seat, etc etc, cutting down on how long it would last and the comfortability of the crew. Along with that, the tanks were hot and cramped, and ghe steel was heat treated at a higher temprrature than the american and british tanks which led it to being more brittle, along with its tendecy to explode when hit. Essentially, imagine multiple highly sweaty guys, wearing not much all cramped together in a small, heat absorbing tank sweating their asses off, some of which didnt even have seats and wss constantly bouncing around. Now imagine you give them a sherman, which while not only has a more likely chance of keeping you alive, also gives you more space and doesn't leave you blisteringly hot, and also doesn't require a hammer to turn to higher gears. Yeah, turns out tanks built to spec across the ocean by trained and professional workers who weren't being bombed is more comfortable than a tank built in a budget by a farmer who was just given a welding tool for the first time and told that if he didnt finish the tank in time he'd be shot
That had to of been a lucky shot cause most WWII Tank Veterans said the Sherman usually went up in flames or someone would die as and said god was watching you if you miraculously survived a hit
@@brennanleadbetter9708 yeah i remember the scotish tank commander with burn scars in his whole face telling me ,all his friends were burnt and they were furius becource of their stupid high losses due to cockoffs and fuel fires ,but that was proberly exaggeration
@ kimmogensen5390 Sometimes you have to take what veterans say with a pinch of salt. Many veterans had different experiences, so you have to look at the whole picture.
The Sherman was a monster in the pacific theatre and a mouse in the European theatre. Many brave men died in those metal coffins in Europe don’t dishonour them with lies.
The statistics don't back that up though. In the European Theater Of Operations from D Day till Victory in Europe. United States Army lost 1507 Light Tanks of all types to all causes and another 4644 Medium Tanks. For that, we lost 1406 Enlisted tankers KIA and another 100 or so Died Of Wounds. From nearly 50k Tankers deployed to Theater. 3 percent is very good odds given 11 months of constant combat operations. As proud as I am of having been an Infantryman, in World War II, the odds for us were pretty grim. Over a hundred and twenty thousand Infantry were Killed In Action, meaning of the rifle ranks of an Infantry Division were destroyed seven times over. The Sherman Tank is a victim of bad press, not poor combat performance. And those AI images were absolutely horrible.
As a side note to that, I forgot to mention that roughly 60% of those tankers killed were not actually aboard their tank when they died, having either evacuated it due to battle damage or were killed while on Sentry Duty or performing other tasks. None of this is said to detract from their bravery, but instead to emphasize that they were brave, well equipped, and hardly in an iron coffin. That would be the German Tankers. 8 to 1 loss rate vs US Army Tankers, Desperate for spare parts, fuel, and everything else.
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih toe to toe a tiger would destroy a Sherman and there is no questioning that every military buff knows that. The Sherman’s strength was its numbers and speed. See the logs strapped to the side of a Sherman that was add a little more armour and give the tank crew a chance to drive away. By the time 1944 came around the German army was cooked. Any German armed vehicle spotted was destroyed primarily by allied airforce.
This is a common misconception that leaves some info out. I will not deny that the Sherman’s armor was not great and the early models did tend to easily ammo rack, later models had wet ammo storage. The effectiveness of the wet ammo storage is debated but what it did so was move the ammo lower in the hull so it was less likely to get hit. And it also leaves out the part that Germans used APHE which likely contributed to the explosion after the ammo was moved.
Do research. 1. The Sherman was one of the first tanks to implement wet ammo. 2. A majority of the time it outperformed other tanks in terms of reliability and quality in manufacturing. 3. It mostly fought stugs and panzer 4s both of which were worse tanks of it and did not face many of the bigger heavies and mediums 4. Later modes had more efficient design storages for the ammo 5. Do actual research doofus before making a claim.
@@taggartmumford8737 Sherman’s did actually see a lot of combat with panthers tigers and king tigers, well not king tigers as there were not a lot of those in service but this was only because that was the main U.S. tank at the time. Pershings didn’t see combat till late 1945. If you could elaborate on your claim that Shermans didn’t see much combat with the big German cats, that would be great.
Said ,anti tank weapon meaning they would immediately kill enemy tank and would mention it's but it's not so that means it was a panzerfaust that attacked it so HEAT , not very damaging
@@cosmincasuta486 True, the entry hole of all shaped-charge warheads are very small indeed. It was the long, white-hot jet of flame inside the armor that was deadly, as it often ignited the ammo and fuel stowage, causing the classic "catastrophic kill"...
@@charlestaylor253HEAT ammunition is simply reliant upon an explosive charge to simultaneously form and propel a kinetic penetrator. Simple laws of thermodynamics make it impractical to design a charge that is capable of both forming propelling and maintaining enough pressure on a penetrator while it travels through armour to actual keep the temperature high enough to make any difference.
They were relatively reliable, easy to repair, had enough room for modifications, were simple to operate (for the time,) and were suitable for supporting infantry.
Shermans were designed to be comfortable, spacious, easy to repare with minimal training, and while they did have issues with catching fire when hit, they had about a 70% crew survivability rate if the vehicle was rendered inoperable. Compare that to the t34 which had none of the above features, were mass produced, usually with extreme time and cost cutting measures, and which had a crew survival rate of only around 20% if the vehicles was lost.
The only good thing about the herman that it was far more spacious then the cramped Russian tanks, the was overall an absolutely terribly useless battle tank, ask the Americans in France.
@@czmec0812 once in wide scale use, it's far too much work to replace it with a completely new design. It was extremely bad tank battle wise e but great cross country tank, easy on crew comfort I suppose. Its said that shermans can be easily vacated in an emergency, Russian tanks were not resulting in Russian getting burnt alive in their tanks.
@@goodwinter6017the sherman tank was posibly the best balence of menuverability, armor, and firepower. That would show up on the battlfield, because of its almost legendary reliability. And last on the battlfield, because it was easy for the crew to operate in a fight. Main thing is, tens of thousands of shermans served in europ, russia and the pacific. Every single sherman came from a factory in the center of the united states, tens of thousands of miles from the battle.
@@evilshewsfrom the army perspective you may be correct but the M4 wins that criteria mostly because made by the thousand. Ask a tanker which tank they would want to be in side and for its pros it is not the M4.
@@jonathanbarraclough5917 i would want to be in pershing probably xd. Anyways they didnt enter realy much battles, i would want most probably in Sherman. T34 Is basicly go And be destroyed And can't be repaired. That tank was crap, Tigers had a lot problem And could be broken in half way. Talking about Tiger II And panther, they had even bigger problem with it. Heavy tanks were the worst honestly. Sherman Is balanced tank And can be easily repaired
Thats what your propaganda boss regurgitates. It worked. Id say the most valuable lend leased equipment was trucks, wich helped the TIME of the advancement (not the quality nor any other thing), just time. All other things the soviets had enough and even more, specially tanks. The number of soviet tanks was enormous since earlier. Shermans were a very little part of the tank numbers in the red army, they had too many t34 to care.
@@pagodebregaeforro2803 You do realize lend lease was given to other countries fighting the nazis on other fronts right? I'll admit I worded my original comment poorly, obviously lend lease by itself didnt secure victory, soldiers and other people needed to operate the equipment for it to be effective. Lend lease was absolutely critical for defeating the nazis, as was every soldier and civilian that fought against them. I'm not trying to downplay the soviet union's key role in decimating the German army on the eastern front but if other German forces and equipment hadnt been destroyed on other fronts utilizing lend lease they would have had more soldiers, tanks, planes, etc. to throw directly at the soviet union
The sherman was an automotive wonder with the punch of sweet pea and a garauntee of lighting on the first strike. Hence it's nickname, The Ronson Lighter or Zippo.
There are memoirs by Dmitry Loza, called “a tank driver in a foreign car.” According to his recollections, the Sherman was allowed into battle only in case of emergency. And so the main tasks were control of the captured territory and security activities. Once "Sherman" acted as a tractor.
They had some good designs the panther, panzer 4 and stug but the Sherman was the best on account for its ease of use, maintenance, lack of terrible problems with their transmissions and engines and the amount of variety Sherman’s have, need one to hit fortified structures there is a Sherman with a 105mm gun need a anti tank Sherman? You got the Sherman firefly, need one for destroying mines, or the capability of crossing water? You got Sherman variants for those jobs. I rest my case
@@Lostandfoundbinwow I dunno man I’ve read some crazy battle stories of solo tigers single handedly taking out entire columns of Sherman’s I don’t claim to be an expert on the matter but from everything I’ve seen those king tigers seemed to be the actual kings of the battlefield of that day 🤪
the whole it took 5 Shermans to kill a tiger is a complete myth first of all and secondly a tiger never operated without another tanks there would always be another tank somewhere else and the king tiger would of had mechanical issues before it got into combat, the whole Micheal Whitman wiping out a Colum of tanks he was with other tigers and he had the advantage of Suprise, i would rather be in a firefly Sherman than a king tiger, so i suggest you shut up before you talk about something you don't know about.
@@Dreaddvegas also i am going to talk about production numbers simply put the germans didn't have the numbers of tigers, king tigers to beat the number and relatively cheap production of the Sherman and its variants
A design that in concept was understood it was to be sent overseas and be able to be repaired and maintained in its theater of operation, it may not have excelled in Hard factors like Armor, Speed, and Fire power but it’s soft factors like crew comfort, working space radios, gyro stabilizer ease of maintenance, crew survivability. The T34 was designed with the knowledge that It’s life expectancy was not long so it was built accordingly
@@czmec0812 im a german main but talking about reality and not videogames the sherman was faster the the german tanks but the germans had the technology ex:first nightvision was implemented in german phanther,first fighter jets build by germany and first automatic rifle by germany aswell
The Sherman Tank was named by the British, after the American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman. The Sherman was a reliable, relatively cheap to produce, and available in great numbers. It was also the basis of several other fighting vehicles, including self-propelled artillery, tank-destroyers, and armored recovery vehicles. Tens of thousands of Shermans were distributed through the Lend-Lease program to the British Commonwealth & the Soviet Union. The designers of the Sherman stressed reliability, ease of production & maintenance, durability, standardization of parts & ammunition in a limited number of variants, and moderate size & weight (to facilitate shipping & for compatibility with existing bridging equipment size & weight limit instructions). These factors combined with the Sherman’s then-superior armor & armament, out-classed German light & medium tanks fielded from 1939 to 1942. The M-4 Sherman was the most produced tank in American History, with 49,324 produced, including variants. During WWll, the Sherman spearheaded many offensives by the Allies after 1942. After WWll, the Sherman, particularly the many new & improved, upgraded versions, continued to see combat service in conflicts around the world, including the Korean War, assisted Israel in the Arab-Israeli Wars, briefly in South Vietnam in the Viet Nam War, and on both sides of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965. Because of her mobility, reliability, armaments & grit…the Sherman Tank became known as “one badass tank”. 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The Brits called them "Tommy cookers" due to their wonderful habit of exploding violently and incineration all the crew inside.Who the hell are you trying to bullshit?
Other more normal repairs were also easy to do on the Sherman. The US knew that they could not haul it back to he US for repairs, so it had to be fixable in the field.
Steel ballistic armor of the highest grade was a nickle-steel alloy that was tough, rather than soft.....It would yield and deform absorbing the energy of the projectile. It was often case hardened (harveyized) to present a very hard layer that would cause a projectile to shatter.
This is not the biggest reason why Soviet tankers loved the Sherman tank. Its because unlike the T-34 and other Soviet tanks, it didn't explode when hit. This is because unlike Soviet tanks then and Russian tanks now. US tanks keep their ammo stored in armored compartments. So if hit the ammo doesn't explode. This meant more often Soviet tankers who used Shermans survived more battles than those that used Soviet tanks.
We British called the Sherman Tanks Zipos, after the petrol lighter, and the Germans called them Tommy Cookers because they tended to burst into flames after being hit by a shell. More British Tankers burned to death during WWII in a Sherman tank than died due to shell impact alone, many died in tanks with minor damage which in most other WWII tanks would have been survivable.
I’m pretty sure the Soviets got the diesel version which worked out really well for them. Also the Brits were free to use their own tanks but kept buying Shermans since you couldn’t produce enough of your own and many of the designs were even poorer.
The Sherman was a excellent tank and would more times than not beat out German tanks because not everything was a tiger. Plus the survivability was better than all the tanks. The chieftains hatch gives a great presentation about the facts. Including that the Germans didn't even know who Patton was.
You know nothing about tanks. The German Panther and the Mark IV were both better than the Sherman. Some argue the Panther was the best German tank. The Sherman nickname was the Armored Coffin.
@@LeahK2018 yea I've also seen all the history channel episodes where they call the Sherman tank that which isn't close to true. Look up the chieftains hatch channel he gets his information from official military documents .
Thank goodness, to demonstrate that the sherman was a good tank just because it didn't explosed (this time) but the armor had a big hole... You would feel very protected inside the "pressure cooker" as they called it at that time...
They worked less noiser than the T-34. It explains why some experienced officers preferred them in their special operations, even if it had no superiority in the straight battles.
I thought the Germans preferred their odds against the Sherman cos they were petrol fuelled and caught fire easily …..they called them ‘Tommy cookers’.
@@richardl772 That was more of a result of US and British crews stuffing as much extra ammo as they possibly could into their "dry stowage" pre-1944 M4/M4A1's, and not so much the fault of the gasoline fuel. Also, diesel fuel may have a much higher flashpoint than gas, but it burns at least as hot when ignited...
Yeah the stug iii panther and tiger coulda hit them at a range of 2 miles pretty sure the shermans had to put a 75mm on it and that was due to the british the fire fly?@richardl772
They actually didn’t because of how high off the ground it was. It was however extremely useful at bolstering their supply and tank numbers. What they really loved though was our GMC trucks which allowed them to deliver supplies off road more effectively. It’s one of the reasons the Soviet Union was capable of accomplishing Operation Bagration and other offensive operations into Eastern and Central Europe!
@@thatdudeinasuit5422Stalin murdered millions more of his own people than Hitler did the Jews and supported the Chinese communist that murdered millions of their people as well...
@thatdudeinasuit5422 He only mentioned that when he realized the Soviets plan for domination in Europe. He despised Hitler, especially when reports of the Concentration Camps started coming in. These guys just leave out important context for the sake of being edgy or they themselves are delusional.
That is why shermans were good tanks. They kept the crew alive, weren't cramped, and had arguably better or equivalent armor to russian tanks (think a T-34's 45mm at 45° slope compared to a sherman's 63mm at 40° slope)
Ah yes, they made soft armor. The engineer responsible for this invention explained his genius approach. “So one day, I accidentally dropped my spoon in the jello and it stuck. That’s when I figured…”
Soviet tank steel was a fair bit harder than american tank steel. This made penetration less likely, but it also made it more brittle, so a shell hitting the tank, while not necessarily penetrating, could case the inside of the armour plate to crack, shooting flakes of metal from the impact like shrapnel into the cabin.
I can do a way better job than is AI bs. More than 4,000 M4A2 Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union by the end of the war. They referred to them as Emchas, from the first letter and number of its alpha-numeric designation (M-4 in Russian in M-chetyrye). There were positive and negative things that the Soviets pointed out. Negatives being the tall profile, sliding in mud and snow, and thin side armor. Soviet tankers were, however, able to wrap barbed wire around the tracks which helped in the snow and mud. Earlier models had tendencies to burn up when hit, which was due to the placement of the ammunition in the sponsons. Later models had an improved ammunition layout that reduced the likelihood of fires. The Soviets also had many praises about the Sherman. The 76 mm gun was well received. Compared to the T-34, it was easier to control and was more resilient during long marches, as well as being more comfortable. The HVSS suspension in later models was much better in rougher terrain than the VVSS suspension of older models. The cupola of M4A2(76)W models was worth taking inspiration from. Components like the Oilgear turret traverse motor and the M10 periscope were studied in detail. The stabilizer was well received. When activated, the gunfire was twice as accurate at a speed of 15kph and five to six times better at 25kph. The crews even enjoyed the many gifts that were found in their Shermans after being transported such as bottles of whiskey. Both Guards and regular units received them. The Shermans saw combat in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, and even Manchuria. They even played a significant role in the Battle of Berlin. One example was the 1st Mechanized Corps, which had over 150 M4A2 Shermans. The Corps attacked the city from the north-east then skirted around the periphery to strike the south, before advancing eastward towards the city center. Overall, the Sherman was well-liked by Soviet crews. Sources: “Sherman Tanks of the Red Army: The American Vehicle in Soviet Service” by Peter Samsonov “Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks: The World War ll Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza” I also recommend RedEffect’s video on Soviet Shermans.
Unless they found a APHE head I’m sure the got hit by a PAK using APCR, the frontal armor of a Sherman would’ve set off any APHE the Germans had unless it was a dud but even then it would’ve had to have a no charge at all to not be set of by slapping 2.5 inches of hardened steel at 1700 mph.
When asked what part of lend-lease materials they wanted more of, the Soviets asked for Jeeps and Spam (the canned meat). They really did not like Sherman tanks.
Of course, it didn't hurt that when they were shipping these to the Russians some of the American workers would put bottles of whiskey in the gun barrel before the plugs were put in for the trip over.
That wasn’t a design made by US engineers to make explosive armament not detonate. It was a malfunctioning shell. They got luckier than one could ever believe. I’d love to know where the shell ended up lol.
The Soviet t-34 had its armor hardened too much to the point it was quite brittle. Pair that with shoddy riveting and the spalling inside was horrendous. At times a single non penetrating hit on the T-34 would still kill the entire crew because of the rain of metal shards that would peel off the inside surface and turn the crew to minced meat.
That's a quantity OF ONE. I seriously DOUBT that most Soviets prefered a Sherman over the SUPERIOR T-34. The T-34 that drove fear into the hearts of German Tankers everywhere. But yeah, im sure that all of the Soviets would have gladly traded one of the best tanks of WWII for the worst tank pf WWII! 👌
So while every body is concern about authenticity of the story, I am more concern about statement... "In one of his interviews he told us".... When did you interviewed him? And by the way, there is a published interview with him where he talks about this incident. And his story completely different. I've red it... here is short version of it. German shell struck on the right side and hit lower back wall under the turret. Next to case where grenades were stored. I was a tank commander and set slightly higher than rest of the crew. Fragments from explosion destroyed my hip, right here on the left, Gunner and driver were torn apart and killed instantly. Tank caught on fire, I was knocked out. Few infantry men saw my tank burning, they jumped on it and pulled me out. I was loosing a lot of blood, luckily hospital was not to far, on the other side of the field, just over the river. I was rushed and doctors were able to save my leg." As you can see "the armor softness" of American Sherman story is a bull shit. In that Interview Yerin talks about his Sherman experience. Over all he admired the crew comfort, smoothness of the ride, simplicity of operating, however did not speak highly of armor quality, or protection. Also spoke about constant problem with Sherman's suspension and lock of spare parts. Unlike soviet tanks, a lot of Sherman could not participate in a fight due to need of repairs. That is why Russians, later on in a war collected all of Shermans and basically got rid of them by concentrating them all in 1 spot and rearming entire army with Soviet made tanks.
For one thing, the Sherman, with all its I guess issues, was more people friendly than the T34. Driveability for one. The modular design for faster repairs, logistics of parts helped with that. Not so sure soft armor would be my first choice.
The M4 had interior lights, padded seats, a smooth transmission, a dependable Ford G.A.N. diesel engine, the different gages were labeled clearly, they had good radios, I read the man's memoir, it was his opinion that the M4 was a really good tank
When I’m in a lying contest and my competition is an AI shorts channel.
You already lost the lying contest at that point
Love your channel bro
@@rolfanderson3925 thanks bro, means the world to hear it in the wild
I thought I was the only one… fn gd shorts using ai this and ai that…
@@VintageWarfarelets see if this isnt some t34 weaboo
Bro those photos are goofy as hell lol
Photos? What photos?
@@GloriG_C17ai generated photos
Ai probably
@@GloriG_C17 you fr?
@@nicklasegholmnielsen Yeah I am, I just see AI Images and very little of Actual Photos.
The sheer amount of misinformation in this short singlehandedly dumbed me down to the level of a 5 year old
Thought the same thing just a bunch of poorly reworded and regurgitated facts…
The people arent real the events arent real the pics arent real ai cancer
@@ryanlewis6344the fact that you referred to the information in this clip as "facts" is what really worries me about this video (the fact that people believe this is actual, factual information). Nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING presented in this video is factual. This video is nothing but completely fabricated nonsense.
Not a single fact was declared in the making of this video.
Rly?? Thx!!
@@TheMattC9999 none of this shit sounds right at all
Goofy ass AI generated photos, do better
Ahahahah these low effort ai channels are getting more and more brain roting
@@jacklloyd8058 dude, this video is genuinely educational? I do not know what the fuck you mean by this channel is brain rot
Who ever says that don't you can't do the same so grow up 6 yr
@faamoeahkau7152 god cannot describe the stupidity of this comment
What's the problem? It illustrates the story, so I really don't care.
You can almost hear it. The sound of a thousand War Thunder players cracking their knuckles
He better fucking prepare.
Ah yes t-34 definitely better because of slanted armor yes definitely the Russian mains cried
And also those of us who actually do their fucking research.
More than 4,000 M4A2 Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union by the end of the war. They referred to them as Emchas, from the first letter and number of its alpha-numeric designation (M-4 in Russian in M-chetyrye).
There were positive and negative things that the Soviets pointed out. Negatives being the tall profile, sliding in mud and snow, and thin side armor. Soviet tankers were, however, able to wrap barbed wire around the tracks which helped in the snow and mud. Earlier models had tendencies to burn up when hit, which was due to the placement of the ammunition in the sponsons. Later models had an improved ammunition layout that reduced the likelihood of fires.
The Soviets also had many praises about the Sherman. The 76 mm gun was well received. Compared to the T-34, it was easier to control and was more resilient during long marches, as well as being more comfortable. The HVSS suspension in later models was much better in rougher terrain than the VVSS suspension of older models. The cupola of M4A2(76)W models was worth taking inspiration from. Components like the Oilgear turret traverse motor and the M10 periscope were studied in detail. The stabilizer was well received. When activated, the gunfire was twice as accurate at a speed of 15kph and five to six times better at 25kph. The crews even enjoyed the many gifts that were found in their Shermans after being transported such as bottles of whiskey. Both Guards and regular units received them.
The Shermans saw combat in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, and even Manchuria. They even played a significant role in the Battle of Berlin. One example was the 1st Mechanized Corps, which had over 150 M4A2 Shermans. The Corps attacked the city from the north-east then skirted around the periphery to strike the south, before advancing eastward towards the city center.
Overall, the Sherman was well-liked by Soviet crews.
Sources: “Sherman Tanks of the Red Army: The American Vehicle in Soviet Service” by Peter Samsonov
“Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks: The World War ll Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza”
I also recommend RedEffect’s video on Soviet Shermans.
Ridiculous . That was a one in a thousand instance where a round didn't explode
@@jankutac9753 APHE was not really significantly more effective than solid AP was. Shermans had rounds stored in a hard to hit location and the lower brinell hardness armor stopped much of the spalling. There's a reason Sherman tanks had the lowest crew mortality rate of any of the main tanks in WW2
This short:
_American engineers came up with an amor which was so soft, it let ALL the AT rounds penetrate._
Paper?
@@boevermichael Nope, its japanese armor!
They are probably solid shot
Historical photos of the real tanks: ✖️ nahh. Goofy ahh AI generated pics: ✔️ yes ofc.
What's the problem? It illustrates the story, so I really don't care.
@@Warthundered230 the photos are ugly, wierd looking, and dont help, none of these photos look like even close to real life equippment they look like a bunch of plates stacked ontop of eachother
@@Warthundered230 They are so bad that they are DISTRACTING.
@@Warthundered230why use AI images when you have real footage all on the internet
COMMANDER KATYUSHA!!!
Shermans had a reliable drive train. The engine ran well on Russian fuel. The high explosive rounds for the main gun were highly effective. The interior was quite roomy and warm in the winter. And yeah, crew survivability was good.
Ronson ? , have U a light 🗝️
The wet ammo racks gave the crew time to bail after a hit started an ammunition fire.
And ammunition fires are *still* the big killer of tankers.
The Soviets received M4A2, (diesel engine), model Shermans, which did indeed run well on Soviet diesel fuel...
@@BrianMarcus-nz7cs Do some research on survivable WWII era tanks. You will be surprised.
@@BrianMarcus-nz7csyou know that’s a myth right 😂
The T34s armor was heat treated at higher temperatures than the other countries armor was making the T34 have really brittle armor that would crack when hit, also sending pieces of the armor or “spalling” flying through the tank, I think that’s what he means by non exploding.
Bro watched the lazer pig video
Its true if you work with steel and shoot it if you make it to brittle it is terrible @@Liam-uq7rb
@@Liam-uq7rb you literally learn about this in design technology class in uni
@@mrbarit529 oh yeah my bad everybody studies for a degree in design technology
@@Liam-uq7rb pls don't be so rude i was only trying to show that you don't need to whatch YT to know that the U.S.S.R. heat treated tank armour to a temp that made the metal brittle. I am sorry if my original comment was rude or offended you in any way.
This is not very realistic of the tanks design. The Sherman’s armor was not intentionally made soft. And the Sherman was a medium tank with little in the way of armor like most medium tanks until very late in the war with the start of the jumbo. While being one of the best tanks of the war it mainly gained that from reliability and crew comfort. The anti tank weapon used was likely a 37mm door knocker with some type of high capacity shell. Or a 5cm anti tank weapon. With the explosive filter of the shell most likely being rendered ineffective on impact or having the detonator shatter. Or was a round more similar to solid shot.
It probably was solid shot, it was very co😊mmon
The front armor of the M4 was actually rather difficult to penetrate. It wasn't very thick, but it was well angled. Panthers often had to hit them 3 times to get 1 shell through.
@@bumblebeangiangiulio6951 germans had only the tungsten penetrator solid shots. Rest were filled with explosives.
@@donwyoming1936source?
@@Gooierostrich10 Bullsh1tland!
The Red Army also loved the Shermans for their leather seats. In fact, they actually had to station guards to prevent the lootings of the leather materials.
Fucken imagine that mate… having to put guards on Shermans so the bastards from other divisions don’t nick ya leather seats 😂😂😂
@@ideges-smasszeryou would think that maybe someone in charge would go. Hey maybe we should put better seats in our tanks and someone probably did and then someone more important went, we do not need comfy tanks. Comfy tanks are for non-disposable people
T-34 also had leather seats but looks like Im the only one who can google that.
@@folder9110 they had no cushion in them the American ones at least has an ass cushion
@@bpw102896
cushion? how the heck you can imagine a leather seat without a cushion?
It’s like a backwards t34 85 with a panther turret mixed with a kv1 turret, and a Sherman 75 gun. It’s the most painful thing I’ve ever seen .
M4 pros : much better ergonomics,quick turret traverse, gun stabilization.
T34 pros : diesel-engine(bigger range and less inflamable), wider tracks(better in mud and snow)
With inflamable as I know it's not true. t-34 was smaller and in distances while moving it will be much harder to hit
Uh... T-34 actually burned more often than M4 Sherman. The Fuel Fire Issue is a myth. Over 90% of Tank hits were front or sides, not rear. US ETO Officers actually investigated that and found a white flame always proceeded catastrophic fires. And Fuel Fires don't create that white flame, but ammunition does.
I have read that the lower frontal glacis held the transverse transmission, which if “lucky” also functioned as “additional” armor. The primary function of that placement was to facilitate ease of repairabilty, with the armor function being a bonus -sometimes.
Sherman: ease of exit. Check out The Chieftain, "my God the tank is on fire".
@@basilmcdonnell9807 Like that complete edition from his early years?
Uhh that's just not true
yeah, it may penetrated the front armor but the fuze should still activate as soon it hits the rest of the tank
@HiboGentoo it could have been a faulty round.
@@Hi-Im-Shade Even so, going inside the tank would kill everybody!!!! It is a bullsh1t story for 1d10ts!
The story is fake. No Soviet officers were allowed to give any compliments to American technology. That was a one-way ticket to Gulag.
No , how could it kill them without explosion ? It was just piece of metal in this case
Memories of the ONE tank commander do not means than entire Red Army preferred Western tanks above Soviet tanks.
In reality many Soviet crews did not likes Sherman for big height and lower ability to drive on the hard terrain then T-34. Kinda ironic, than the only tank, which almost did not had critique from Soviet crews, was Valentine.
Where did the Sherman's end up in Soviet usage? Guards Armored units. The best of the survivors of the early battles got Sherman's so as to help them stay alive longer.
@@danconnolly2341
Soviet regiments got their Guard status not for the biggest percentage of survivors, but for exceptional achievements and victories. For your logic, Guard status would got only regiments, who fought only against secondary German allies, like Italians or Romanians, lol, because it was easiest enemy and caused less losses at the start of the war.
Besides, again, SOME Guard regiments had Shermans, but majority of the Guard tank divisions had heavy IS-2 with T-34 support. Some penal battalions had land-lease tanks in amond their stuff - does it mean, that Soviets tried to kill with those rolling coffins as fast as possible, lol?
Besides, M4 Sherman did not had any advantages for survival. It was much bigger in size, better target for enemy AT guns, worse hard terrain tolerance (ya know, there are no roads in Russia - only directions), and also when it broken, it was MUCH harder to find proper parts for repairing.
@@Goran1138 You are incorrect. The M4 Sherman tank had a very high survivability rate, it was easy to escape when damaged. The T-34 on the other hand, was a death trap. Soldiers could not easily escape the cramped interior of the tank. And poor quality armor was a problem with the T-34, often times when it was hit with a shell the metal interior would spall and shower the crew with pieces of shrapnel. Soviet tank crews that operated the Sherman praised it for it's reliability, ease of maintenance and superior ergonomics compared to the T-34. Guards units were given priority to get the best equipment, and many were issued the Sherman tank. As a matter of fact, the first Soviet unit that entered Berlin was equipped with Sherman tanks.
The Soviets had praises and complaints for the Sherman, but overall, it was well liked.
@@danconnolly2341Translate text with your camera
You're talking nonsense, no one liked using American tanks, not even the Americans.
The M3 & M4 were both roomy tanks that were very reliable. Contrary to post war, Soviet propaganda, the M3 Lee was actually quite popular with the Russian troops. The M4s saw quite a bit of action in Russia right up to the end of the war.
Yeah, yeah!!! From the same bullsh1t propaganda!!!
Yea M3 was popular as grave to six brothers😂 like rusian soldiers sayed
Exactly. The T-34 was very cramped , even for small N. Korean guys, and you had almost no situational awareness. And they also broke down a lot.
@@CentristDad155 No they're not!!! You was ever in a T34???? Not!!! I was, still working in 1988. We did our basic training on T34!! So, shit the f..k up with your bullsh1t propaganda! All kind of 1d10ts citing all kind of internet non-sense are "great specialists">>>> GFYS 1d10t!
@@CentristDad155 The lack of situational awareness was because of the two man turret, in which the gunner had the role of the commander, in addition to the lack of a cupola, or the lack of sufficient vision slits.
At least they noticed these problems and were solved with the release of the T-34-85
German tank officer's said a German tank was as good as 4 Sherman's but the Americans always brought 5.
Maybe that was applicable for 1 Tiger II vs 4-6 Shermans?
Yeah...no, Panzer IV was at best equal and in some ways (mobility and turret traverse speed) inferior to the Sherman. That was the most common tank Sherman's encountered until very late in the war when the outcome was no longer in doubt. Panther had some qualities that were well advanced over the stock Sherman but the quality control and the crews by the late war time period led to almost even loss rates. Tiger was another thing altogether, but so rare as to not have a real impact in the western theater.
That’s true if you’re comparing German heavies to Shermans, but that rarely happened and is also applicable to any country’s tanks.
Aawww the myth it took 4 Sherman’s to kill a tiger
You didn’t normally try to fight a heavy tank with a medium tank. That is what artillery is for.
Most AP anti tank shell didn't explode anyway. Just cynetic energy of the projectile
*kinetic and German AT guns were generally more reliant on APHE rounds as opposed to APCR rounds as a result of the scarcity of tungsten (the primary component of the core) throughout the war.
Soviet tankers when their tank doesn't break down every 200 kilometres and have more than shoulder space to move around: 😮
T34 tankers loved the M4. Roomy. And the engine didn't self destruct every 200kms.
Soviet tanks were often better than anything the Americans can muster, with tanks such as the KV-1 or IS/JS-2. They were far more reliable than the German cats for sure.
@@parrotcraft7503 American tanks had better reliability then soviet
Yes....Exactelly the main bullsh1t propaganda!!! Did you were anytime in a T34???? NOT!!!! Because you're eating sh1t!
@@parrotcraft7503 Yes...but the sh1t propaganda eaters are enjoying the quality sh1t from their own sh1th0le propaganda!
This is the most passionate AI sound so far. I don't know. It felt like he was happy about something.
While I can't verify this story in particular, I do know outside the M3 Lee, which the Soviets hated due to being too tall, American tanks where recieved much better than even late war T-34s.
In terms of advantages, the Sherman's ergonomics where far better than the T-34s, with better Gun, driver, radio operator, and commander periscopes, and better gunner sights than the T-34, to the point the Soviets would often lift the Sherman's sights and install them on T-34s if the Sherman was rendered destroyed or burned out.
Another big advantage they enjoyed was maintenance, something often overlooked. German and Soviet tanks tended to have less reliable parts, the idea being that you could run parts harder, or produce more of them. If a critical part breaks, you just put it on a train home, and it would be fixed in a factory with dedicated tools. The Americans couldn't do this, due to having to ship everything over the Atlantic or Pacific, so Shermans where designed to have their parts not only last, but be easily replaceable in the field with the same equipment used to refit basic trucks and halftracks in the field. What this meant is Soviet Sherman units could often recover and repair their Sherman the same day it was knocked out, even replacing entire engine blocks with T-34 engines in the field, using only tractor engine hoists. T-34 crews often had to wait an average of 3 days before recieving a replacement T-34, as even transmission replacements took a long time to do in the field, and where often considered to not be worth the hassle by Soviet commanders.
The Soviets got a lot of early Shermans, which had the narrow tracks that gave less traction. Also, the rubberized coating on the M4's tracks was very nice for use on Western European roads, but not very helpful on icy and muddy Russian fields. The T-34, for all its many faults, had wide tracks from the get-go, and the waffle pattern tracks were superb in winter.
@@ostiariusalpha Sherman Rubber Brush tracks where easily removed, it was just a simple spray on coating, which didn't really affect it's ability to cross mud, or the improvised roadways used during large tank movements. Especially considering the rubber brush was 1/16th and inch in thickness.
The Soviets also didn't particularly complain about it's ability to cross mud, at least not anymore than they did about the T-34. Because the Bogie suspension was a 6 wheeled, as opposed to the Christie suspension on the T-34 sporting 5 wheels. So ground pressure per square inch was similar, which funnily enough, both are still more than the Tiger's, who's main issue wasn't "getting stuck in the mud" but mud getting into the leaf wheels of the Tiger. Both the Sherman and T-34 suffered in the mud, like all tanks even to this day, but neither had it particularly worse than the other.
@@Mikalent No, ground pressure between the two was most definitely _not_ the same. Ground pressure is determined by how much track is touching the ground, not by how many wheels you have. And there is plenty of records of Soviet tankers liking the Sherman, but noting that it had less traction than the T-34s they had also driven.
@@ostiariusalpha With ground Pressure, the number of wheels does matter, they are what transfers the weight on the tank to the ground.
For simplicity sake, if you have 120 pounds, if you spread it on 5, 1 inch points of contact, each 1 inch point will be transferring 24 lbs to the ground, as opposed to 6 points of contact, which transfer 20 lbs per point. Track length does not matter, because the tracks are not a single piece, but dozens of smaller pieces linked together, so any track not directly in contact with one of the wheels isn't a primary weight bearer. It's a secondary weight brearer, because it will eventually help spread out the weight if the ground pressure of the primary weight bearing track section (IE the ones in direct contact with the leaf wheels) sinks the ground to a certain point. The width of the tracks did help, but again, points of ground contact via the leaf wheels does matter. Because at least what I have read of Russian crew of both the T-34 and Sherman, that has not been disproven, states they had roughly similar rates of failure in mud crossing, especially once you factor in that the Soviets where getting the pacific track upgrades(designed for a lot worse conditions than Russian mud) almost immediately.
@@Mikalent No, bud. The wheels transfer weight to the track and the track transfers weight to the ground. This is why someone wearing skis can stand on snow that you would sink into if you were only wearing boots; as long as the weight is the same, the number of legs on the skis doesn't matter. Please re-educate yourself on how tanks work.
At the time they first ran into them in 1941, Guderian and Kleist both proclaimed the T34 the finest tank in the world. Can’t get a higher endorsement than that.
That was true in 1941, before they had seen the M4.
They had a much tougher time with KV-1s than T-34s.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 from what I have read, KV-1 was too heavy, it had a bad transmission and it was too difficult to operate, so the Soviets ceased its production in 1942.
@@user-ys1dh5md5kMainly because they had a better heavy tank in the IS series.
They said that for coverage for their own ineptitude and lack of ability to keep Adolph out of the decision making processes for Barbarossa.
They were a lot more comfortable, had higher survival rates and due to not being built by farmers making constant shortcuts to meet dead lines in the ural mountains were built to a higher quality.
On paper, the T-34 wasnt that bad of a tank, if cramped and had a few issues. But russian officers woulr hold strict deadlines, and often the workers were untrained in things such as welding. Due to these deadlines, theyd make shortcuts, such as not putting rubber in places, not giving the gunner a seat, etc etc, cutting down on how long it would last and the comfortability of the crew. Along with that, the tanks were hot and cramped, and ghe steel was heat treated at a higher temprrature than the american and british tanks which led it to being more brittle, along with its tendecy to explode when hit.
Essentially, imagine multiple highly sweaty guys, wearing not much all cramped together in a small, heat absorbing tank sweating their asses off, some of which didnt even have seats and wss constantly bouncing around. Now imagine you give them a sherman, which while not only has a more likely chance of keeping you alive, also gives you more space and doesn't leave you blisteringly hot, and also doesn't require a hammer to turn to higher gears.
Yeah, turns out tanks built to spec across the ocean by trained and professional workers who weren't being bombed is more comfortable than a tank built in a budget by a farmer who was just given a welding tool for the first time and told that if he didnt finish the tank in time he'd be shot
So apparently American trucks provided by lend lease made up only 15% of all the trucks soviet union but done 60% of all the workforce.
That had to of been a lucky shot cause most WWII Tank Veterans said the Sherman usually went up in flames or someone would die as and said god was watching you if you miraculously survived a hit
It’s an old stereotype
@@brennanleadbetter9708 what do you mean an old stereotype???
@ DakotaOverlander perhaps what I meant to say was an old exaggeration.
@@brennanleadbetter9708 yeah i remember the scotish tank commander with burn scars in his whole face telling me ,all his friends were burnt
and they were furius becource of their stupid high losses due to cockoffs and fuel fires ,but that was proberly exaggeration
@ kimmogensen5390 Sometimes you have to take what veterans say with a pinch of salt. Many veterans had different experiences, so you have to look at the whole picture.
The Sherman was a monster in the pacific theatre and a mouse in the European theatre. Many brave men died in those metal coffins in Europe don’t dishonour them with lies.
The statistics don't back that up though.
In the European Theater Of Operations from D Day till Victory in Europe.
United States Army lost 1507 Light Tanks of all types to all causes and another 4644 Medium Tanks.
For that, we lost 1406 Enlisted tankers KIA and another 100 or so Died Of Wounds. From nearly 50k Tankers deployed to Theater.
3 percent is very good odds given 11 months of constant combat operations.
As proud as I am of having been an Infantryman, in World War II, the odds for us were pretty grim. Over a hundred and twenty thousand Infantry were Killed In Action, meaning of the rifle ranks of an Infantry Division were destroyed seven times over.
The Sherman Tank is a victim of bad press, not poor combat performance.
And those AI images were absolutely horrible.
As a side note to that, I forgot to mention that roughly 60% of those tankers killed were not actually aboard their tank when they died, having either evacuated it due to battle damage or were killed while on Sentry Duty or performing other tasks.
None of this is said to detract from their bravery, but instead to emphasize that they were brave, well equipped, and hardly in an iron coffin.
That would be the German Tankers. 8 to 1 loss rate vs US Army Tankers, Desperate for spare parts, fuel, and everything else.
@@Jamesbrown-xi5ih toe to toe a tiger would destroy a Sherman and there is no questioning that every military buff knows that. The Sherman’s strength was its numbers and speed. See the logs strapped to the side of a Sherman that was add a little more armour and give the tank crew a chance to drive away. By the time 1944 came around the German army was cooked. Any German armed vehicle spotted was destroyed primarily by allied airforce.
@@PhillipGWhite Tanks don't fight toe to toe, and teh US used Tank Destroyer units for anti armor work, every military buff should know that.
They liked American tanks because they were free.
That's not true. Shermans were notorious for exploding at the slightest hit.
Fudd-lore, Sherman’s were actually known for their simplicity, survivability, and comfort.
This is a common misconception that leaves some info out. I will not deny that the Sherman’s armor was not great and the early models did tend to easily ammo rack, later models had wet ammo storage. The effectiveness of the wet ammo storage is debated but what it did so was move the ammo lower in the hull so it was less likely to get hit. And it also leaves out the part that Germans used APHE which likely contributed to the explosion after the ammo was moved.
Do research. 1. The Sherman was one of the first tanks to implement wet ammo.
2. A majority of the time it outperformed other tanks in terms of reliability and quality in manufacturing.
3. It mostly fought stugs and panzer 4s both of which were worse tanks of it and did not face many of the bigger heavies and mediums
4. Later modes had more efficient design storages for the ammo
5. Do actual research doofus before making a claim.
@@taggartmumford8737 Sherman’s did actually see a lot of combat with panthers tigers and king tigers, well not king tigers as there were not a lot of those in service but this was only because that was the main U.S. tank at the time. Pershings didn’t see combat till late 1945. If you could elaborate on your claim that Shermans didn’t see much combat with the big German cats, that would be great.
@@ShadoWolfvidiosalright simple elaboration on that,the US army disnt see much tigers or phanters since the main frontline was against USSR
Germany used APHE so the shell was supposed to explode
maybe they expect KV1 and prepare APCR in advance
Said ,anti tank weapon meaning they would immediately kill enemy tank and would mention it's but it's not so that means it was a panzerfaust that attacked it so HEAT , not very damaging
@@USSR_leningrad The Panzerfaust did not create a wide hole!!!!
@@cosmincasuta486
True, the entry hole of all shaped-charge warheads are very small indeed. It was the long, white-hot jet of flame inside the armor that was deadly, as it often ignited the ammo and fuel stowage, causing the classic "catastrophic kill"...
@@charlestaylor253HEAT ammunition is simply reliant upon an explosive charge to simultaneously form and propel a kinetic penetrator. Simple laws of thermodynamics make it impractical to design a charge that is capable of both forming propelling and maintaining enough pressure on a penetrator while it travels through armour to actual keep the temperature high enough to make any difference.
They were relatively reliable, easy to repair, had enough room for modifications, were simple to operate (for the time,) and were suitable for supporting infantry.
Shermans were designed to be comfortable, spacious, easy to repare with minimal training, and while they did have issues with catching fire when hit, they had about a 70% crew survivability rate if the vehicle was rendered inoperable. Compare that to the t34 which had none of the above features, were mass produced, usually with extreme time and cost cutting measures, and which had a crew survival rate of only around 20% if the vehicles was lost.
The only good thing about the herman that it was far more spacious then the cramped Russian tanks, the was overall an absolutely terribly useless battle tank, ask the Americans in France.
T34 enjoyer, terrible tank? If its true i wonder why they used it whole ww2 then
@@czmec0812 once in wide scale use, it's far too much work to replace it with a completely new design. It was extremely bad tank battle wise e but great cross country tank, easy on crew comfort I suppose.
Its said that shermans can be easily vacated in an emergency, Russian tanks were not resulting in Russian getting burnt alive in their tanks.
@@goodwinter6017the sherman tank was posibly the best balence of menuverability, armor, and firepower. That would show up on the battlfield, because of its almost legendary reliability. And last on the battlfield, because it was easy for the crew to operate in a fight.
Main thing is, tens of thousands of shermans served in europ, russia and the pacific. Every single sherman came from a factory in the center of the united states, tens of thousands of miles from the battle.
@@evilshewsfrom the army perspective you may be correct but the M4 wins that criteria mostly because made by the thousand.
Ask a tanker which tank they would want to be in side and for its pros it is not the M4.
@@jonathanbarraclough5917 i would want to be in pershing probably xd. Anyways they didnt enter realy much battles, i would want most probably in Sherman. T34 Is basicly go And be destroyed And can't be repaired. That tank was crap, Tigers had a lot problem And could be broken in half way. Talking about Tiger II And panther, they had even bigger problem with it. Heavy tanks were the worst honestly. Sherman Is balanced tank And can be easily repaired
Lend Lease is the real hero that stopped the nazis
Thats what your propaganda boss regurgitates.
It worked.
Id say the most valuable lend leased equipment was trucks, wich helped the TIME of the advancement (not the quality nor any other thing), just time.
All other things the soviets had enough and even more, specially tanks. The number of soviet tanks was enormous since earlier.
Shermans were a very little part of the tank numbers in the red army, they had too many t34 to care.
@@pagodebregaeforro2803 You do realize lend lease was given to other countries fighting the nazis on other fronts right? I'll admit I worded my original comment poorly, obviously lend lease by itself didnt secure victory, soldiers and other people needed to operate the equipment for it to be effective. Lend lease was absolutely critical for defeating the nazis, as was every soldier and civilian that fought against them. I'm not trying to downplay the soviet union's key role in decimating the German army on the eastern front but if other German forces and equipment hadnt been destroyed on other fronts utilizing lend lease they would have had more soldiers, tanks, planes, etc. to throw directly at the soviet union
The sherman was an automotive wonder with the punch of sweet pea and a garauntee of lighting on the first strike. Hence it's nickname, The Ronson Lighter or Zippo.
Zippos were the flamethrower tanks
There are memoirs by Dmitry Loza, called “a tank driver in a foreign car.” According to his recollections, the Sherman was allowed into battle only in case of emergency. And so the main tasks were control of the captured territory and security activities. Once "Sherman" acted as a tractor.
I don’t know about this story BUT the Sherman was the best tank of World War Two
It really wasn't the Germans had much superior tanks the entire length of the war
They had some good designs the panther, panzer 4 and stug but the Sherman was the best on account for its ease of use, maintenance, lack of terrible problems with their transmissions and engines and the amount of variety Sherman’s have, need one to hit fortified structures there is a Sherman with a 105mm gun need a anti tank Sherman? You got the Sherman firefly, need one for destroying mines, or the capability of crossing water? You got Sherman variants for those jobs. I rest my case
@@Lostandfoundbinwow I dunno man I’ve read some crazy battle stories of solo tigers single handedly taking out entire columns of Sherman’s I don’t claim to be an expert on the matter but from everything I’ve seen those king tigers seemed to be the actual kings of the battlefield of that day 🤪
the whole it took 5 Shermans to kill a tiger is a complete myth first of all and secondly a tiger never operated without another tanks there would always be another tank somewhere else and the king tiger would of had mechanical issues before it got into combat, the whole Micheal Whitman wiping out a Colum of tanks he was with other tigers and he had the advantage of Suprise, i would rather be in a firefly Sherman than a king tiger, so i suggest you shut up before you talk about something you don't know about.
@@Dreaddvegas also i am going to talk about production numbers simply put the germans didn't have the numbers of tigers, king tigers to beat the number and relatively cheap production of the Sherman and its variants
Because the Sherman was a GOOD tank
Nop
@@zoecyberpop484except it was, keep coping.
A design that in concept was understood it was to be sent overseas and be able to be repaired and maintained in its theater of operation, it may not have excelled in Hard factors like Armor, Speed, and Fire power but it’s soft factors like crew comfort, working space radios, gyro stabilizer ease of maintenance, crew survivability.
The T34 was designed with the knowledge that It’s life expectancy was not long so it was built accordingly
@@zoecyberpop484someone played war thunder russia main
@@czmec0812 im a german main but talking about reality and not videogames the sherman was faster the the german tanks but the germans had the technology ex:first nightvision was implemented in german phanther,first fighter jets build by germany and first automatic rifle by germany aswell
The Sherman Tank was named by the British, after the American Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman.
The Sherman was a reliable, relatively cheap to produce, and available in great numbers. It was also the basis of several other fighting vehicles, including self-propelled artillery, tank-destroyers, and armored recovery vehicles. Tens of thousands of Shermans were distributed through the Lend-Lease program to the British Commonwealth & the Soviet Union.
The designers of the Sherman stressed reliability, ease of production & maintenance, durability, standardization of parts & ammunition in a limited number of variants, and moderate size & weight (to facilitate shipping & for compatibility with existing bridging equipment size & weight limit instructions). These factors combined with the Sherman’s then-superior armor & armament, out-classed German light & medium tanks fielded from 1939 to 1942. The M-4 Sherman was the most produced tank in American History, with 49,324 produced, including variants.
During WWll, the Sherman spearheaded many offensives by the Allies after 1942.
After WWll, the Sherman, particularly the many new & improved, upgraded versions, continued to see combat service in conflicts around the world, including the Korean War, assisted Israel in the Arab-Israeli Wars, briefly in South Vietnam in the Viet Nam War, and on both sides of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965.
Because of her mobility, reliability, armaments & grit…the Sherman Tank became known as “one badass tank”.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
The Brits called them "Tommy cookers" due to
their wonderful habit of
exploding violently and incineration all the crew inside.Who the hell are you trying to bullshit?
Other more normal repairs were also easy to do on the Sherman. The US knew that they could not haul it back to he US for repairs, so it had to be fixable in the field.
Steel ballistic armor of the highest grade was a nickle-steel alloy that was tough, rather than soft.....It would yield and deform absorbing the energy of the projectile.
It was often case hardened (harveyized) to present a very hard layer that would cause a projectile to shatter.
Because unlike the T-34 the Sherman didn't constantly break down
It shot through and killed most of the crew but leaving the tank repairable 😢
The bullet was never explosive, but if the bullet hit the ammo pack or the oil tank it will explosde
This is not the biggest reason why Soviet tankers loved the Sherman tank. Its because unlike the T-34 and other Soviet tanks, it didn't explode when hit. This is because unlike Soviet tanks then and Russian tanks now. US tanks keep their ammo stored in armored compartments. So if hit the ammo doesn't explode. This meant more often Soviet tankers who used Shermans survived more battles than those that used Soviet tanks.
One hour to repair it, wow. Well done that man.
He had luck, that the tank didnt burn out...
We British called the Sherman Tanks Zipos, after the petrol lighter, and the Germans called them Tommy Cookers because they tended to burst into flames after being hit by a shell.
More British Tankers burned to death during WWII in a Sherman tank than died due to shell impact alone, many died in tanks with minor damage which in most other WWII tanks would have been survivable.
American tanker crews were all issued M1911s in case of just such an occasion.
British Shermans burnt because y'all decided to put extra fuel and ammo on the floor and other random places
Beggars can't be choosers? Lol
PIRATES KNOW BETTER!
I’m pretty sure the Soviets got the diesel version which worked out really well for them. Also the Brits were free to use their own tanks but kept buying Shermans since you couldn’t produce enough of your own and many of the designs were even poorer.
Because Shermans worked
"iron armor that is also soft"
sounds like something u hear from myth n legends 😂
One main reason the Soviets loved Emchas. Leather seats. That and a Sherman is way more ergonomic to fight in than a T34.
The Sherman was a excellent tank and would more times than not beat out German tanks because not everything was a tiger. Plus the survivability was better than all the tanks. The chieftains hatch gives a great presentation about the facts. Including that the Germans didn't even know who Patton was.
You know nothing about tanks. The German Panther and the Mark IV were both better than the Sherman. Some argue the Panther was the best German tank. The Sherman nickname was the Armored Coffin.
@@LeahK2018 yea I've also seen all the history channel episodes where they call the Sherman tank that which isn't close to true. Look up the chieftains hatch channel he gets his information from official military documents .
The US often added Thompson SMGs to the tank package. The Soviet tankers liked those.
True, but the Soviet PPSH-41's were no joke either!...
Bruh I think american tanker prefer M3 grease gun than thompson. To bulky.
Thank goodness, to demonstrate that the sherman was a good tank just because it didn't explosed (this time) but the armor had a big hole... You would feel very protected inside the "pressure cooker" as they called it at that time...
Because its LIKE A BIG BURNING COFFIN for fellas.
That was the Lee
They liked Sherman's because they worked
They worked less noiser than the T-34. It explains why some experienced officers preferred them in their special operations, even if it had no superiority in the straight battles.
I thought the Germans preferred their odds against the Sherman cos they were petrol fuelled and caught fire easily …..they called them ‘Tommy cookers’.
@@richardl772
That was more of a result of US and British crews stuffing as much extra ammo as they possibly could into their "dry stowage" pre-1944 M4/M4A1's, and not so much the fault of the gasoline fuel. Also, diesel fuel may have a much higher flashpoint than gas, but it burns at least as hot when ignited...
Yeah the stug iii panther and tiger coulda hit them at a range of 2 miles pretty sure the shermans had to put a 75mm on it and that was due to the british the fire fly?@richardl772
Idk what's worse, the fake story or the AI images
The Sherman had a lot more room for the crew than the T-34.
They actually didn’t because of how high off the ground it was. It was however extremely useful at bolstering their supply and tank numbers. What they really loved though was our GMC trucks which allowed them to deliver supplies off road more effectively. It’s one of the reasons the Soviet Union was capable of accomplishing Operation Bagration and other offensive operations into Eastern and Central Europe!
Yeah,they hated them so much they christened them "Emcha" as an affectionate nickname
We defeted the wrong enemy. - Gen Patton
If he truly believed that he was bloody delusional.
@thatdudeinasuit5422 well, he was there and saw it with his own eyes. You've only read and seen bullshit propaganda. I'm going with Patton.
@@thatdudeinasuit5422Stalin murdered millions more of his own people than Hitler did the Jews and supported the Chinese communist that murdered millions of their people as well...
@thatdudeinasuit5422 He only mentioned that when he realized the Soviets plan for domination in Europe.
He despised Hitler, especially when reports of the Concentration Camps started coming in.
These guys just leave out important context for the sake of being edgy or they themselves are delusional.
Bro won his degree💀
you actually expect me to believe that shell cut through steel than did not harm people inside😂😂
There’s a name for those tanks, Ronson.
You know that was a myth right?
@@flight2k5 Lol, how about the one shot lighter….
@@Desertduleler_88 😂🤣 naw. You need to stop believing myths
Didn’t the Soviet tankers call it “a grave for 5 brothers” or words to that effect.
So their T-34 is "a grave for 4 brothers" or something? Because the life expectancy of a T-34 in WW2 was only 18 hours.
it was the m3 that was a grave for 7 brothers
That was the M3 Lee, but with a crew of seven.
That is why shermans were good tanks.
They kept the crew alive, weren't cramped, and had arguably better or equivalent armor to russian tanks (think a T-34's 45mm at 45° slope compared to a sherman's 63mm at 40° slope)
Ah yes, they made soft armor.
The engineer responsible for this invention explained his genius approach.
“So one day, I accidentally dropped my spoon in the jello and it stuck.
That’s when I figured…”
A Soviet soldier NEVER DID a test drive on a sherman
Soviet tank steel was a fair bit harder than american tank steel. This made penetration less likely, but it also made it more brittle, so a shell hitting the tank, while not necessarily penetrating, could case the inside of the armour plate to crack, shooting flakes of metal from the impact like shrapnel into the cabin.
100 Glass Joe’s will eventually overpower 1 Mike Tyson.
Bro keep the snail well fed 🐌
Possibly because they were better built, more comfortable to operate, easier to maintain and more reliable.
Soft armor, so that shells penetrate but do not explode. Damn internet, you have reached a new bottom.
I can do a way better job than is AI bs.
More than 4,000 M4A2 Shermans were sent to the Soviet Union by the end of the war. They referred to them as Emchas, from the first letter and number of its alpha-numeric designation (M-4 in Russian in M-chetyrye).
There were positive and negative things that the Soviets pointed out. Negatives being the tall profile, sliding in mud and snow, and thin side armor. Soviet tankers were, however, able to wrap barbed wire around the tracks which helped in the snow and mud. Earlier models had tendencies to burn up when hit, which was due to the placement of the ammunition in the sponsons. Later models had an improved ammunition layout that reduced the likelihood of fires.
The Soviets also had many praises about the Sherman. The 76 mm gun was well received. Compared to the T-34, it was easier to control and was more resilient during long marches, as well as being more comfortable. The HVSS suspension in later models was much better in rougher terrain than the VVSS suspension of older models. The cupola of M4A2(76)W models was worth taking inspiration from. Components like the Oilgear turret traverse motor and the M10 periscope were studied in detail. The stabilizer was well received. When activated, the gunfire was twice as accurate at a speed of 15kph and five to six times better at 25kph. The crews even enjoyed the many gifts that were found in their Shermans after being transported such as bottles of whiskey. Both Guards and regular units received them.
The Shermans saw combat in Romania, Hungary, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Germany, and even Manchuria. They even played a significant role in the Battle of Berlin. One example was the 1st Mechanized Corps, which had over 150 M4A2 Shermans. The Corps attacked the city from the north-east then skirted around the periphery to strike the south, before advancing eastward towards the city center.
Overall, the Sherman was well-liked by Soviet crews.
Sources: “Sherman Tanks of the Red Army: The American Vehicle in Soviet Service” by Peter Samsonov
“Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks: The World War ll Memoirs of Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza”
I also recommend RedEffect’s video on Soviet Shermans.
When i'm in a making slop competition and a shorts creator arrives (i thought we were making the food)
Unless they found a APHE head I’m sure the got hit by a PAK using APCR, the frontal armor of a Sherman would’ve set off any APHE the Germans had unless it was a dud but even then it would’ve had to have a no charge at all to not be set of by slapping 2.5 inches of hardened steel at 1700 mph.
Armour piercing anti tank shell don't explode, because they don't contain explosives. They're just metal slugs.
When asked what part of lend-lease materials they wanted more of, the Soviets asked for Jeeps and Spam (the canned meat). They really did not like Sherman tanks.
They viewed the Sherman quite positively. But of all things that came from lend-lease, trucks and Jeeps were probably the most important.
tank commander: What are u doing?
mechanic: installing the new Marshmellow front plate!
German saying regarding armour protection.Better in and out in a Mark IV than in and around in a Panther.
Of course, it didn't hurt that when they were shipping these to the Russians some of the American workers would put bottles of whiskey in the gun barrel before the plugs were put in for the trip over.
Anti-tank rounds were solid steel. They don't explode.
That wasn’t a design made by US engineers to make explosive armament not detonate. It was a malfunctioning shell. They got luckier than one could ever believe. I’d love to know where the shell ended up lol.
The shermans had a refrigerator with coke on board.
Comrade, de American tank so squishy, me like!
Sir, the soldiers inside were squishy too.
1. Easy to repair and maintain
2. Much more reliable than the T34s
3. Much larger and more come trouble
We were making more Sherman's than the Germans could destroy.
And whatever the Germans did destroy can easily be repaired
That wasn't because of some magic armor, that's because the shell was a dud.....
Also M3 lee was called "Coffin for 7 brothers" by soviets. Idk what to say.
The soft steel of the Sherman's armor was not designed to be a block 75mm swiss cheese. It was just the cheapest made WWII tank!
Nope
* cracks knuckles *
NO ARMOR BEST ARMOR
The Soviet t-34 had its armor hardened too much to the point it was quite brittle. Pair that with shoddy riveting and the spalling inside was horrendous. At times a single non penetrating hit on the T-34 would still kill the entire crew because of the rain of metal shards that would peel off the inside surface and turn the crew to minced meat.
That's a quantity OF ONE. I seriously DOUBT that most Soviets prefered a Sherman over the SUPERIOR T-34. The T-34 that drove fear into the hearts of German Tankers everywhere. But yeah, im sure that all of the Soviets would have gladly traded one of the best tanks of WWII for the worst tank pf WWII! 👌
T-34 superior? In some ways yes, but the two are comparable.
im sure the AI didn’t study history
So while every body is concern about authenticity of the story, I am more concern about statement... "In one of his interviews he told us".... When did you interviewed him? And by the way, there is a published interview with him where he talks about this incident. And his story completely different. I've red it... here is short version of it. German shell struck on the right side and hit lower back wall under the turret. Next to case where grenades were stored. I was a tank commander and set slightly higher than rest of the crew. Fragments from explosion destroyed my hip, right here on the left, Gunner and driver were torn apart and killed instantly. Tank caught on fire, I was knocked out. Few infantry men saw my tank burning, they jumped on it and pulled me out. I was loosing a lot of blood, luckily hospital was not to far, on the other side of the field, just over the river. I was rushed and doctors were able to save my leg." As you can see "the armor softness" of American Sherman story is a bull shit. In that Interview Yerin talks about his Sherman experience. Over all he admired the crew comfort, smoothness of the ride, simplicity of operating, however did not speak highly of armor quality, or protection. Also spoke about constant problem with Sherman's suspension and lock of spare parts. Unlike soviet tanks, a lot of Sherman could not participate in a fight due to need of repairs. That is why Russians, later on in a war collected all of Shermans and basically got rid of them by concentrating them all in 1 spot and rearming entire army with Soviet made tanks.
😊
Tank commander at 18 is fucking mad
This is the origin of the snail that no armor is best armor
For one thing, the Sherman, with all its I guess issues, was more people friendly than the T34.
Driveability for one.
The modular design for faster repairs, logistics of parts helped with that.
Not so sure soft armor would be my first choice.
That tank gone blown up after an hour(right before:-"it was repaired")...
I heard they hated our tanks, but asked for more trucks.
Overall the Sherman was viewed positively by the Soviets.
Fun fact, a kinetic penetrator (aka solid shot) doesnt fucking explode
The M4 had interior lights, padded seats, a smooth transmission, a dependable Ford G.A.N. diesel engine, the different gages were labeled clearly, they had good radios, I read the man's memoir, it was his opinion that the M4 was a really good tank
Someone assigned to a tank isn't going to give you his honest opinion on that tank because it will upset his superiors😮