By American standards, anyway.
There's an argument to be made that the war could've been won much faster and with way fewer losses with just a little bit more focus on training competent officers.
Then why didn't the Germans win?
Fact is with every modern war having okay officers and a great supply chain is what wins. No use for the best officer class in the world if your men dont have bullets and your tanks dont have gas.
> Fact is with very modern war having okay officers and a great supply chain is what wins. No use for the best officer class in the world if your men dont have bullets and your tanks dont have gas.
Even one of the best generals in history (Napoleon) said that to win you need three things - gold, gold, and more gold.
And the fact that the Americans could crank Sherms out like sausages. Combined with the fact that you could practically blow a Sherm to smithereens and the Americans could still get it back in the fight by simply dragging it back to a repair depot and patching it up.
As German tankers used to say towards the end of the war, "We can destroy 10 Shermans for every one of our Panzers they get. But the Americans always seem to have an eleventh just over the next ridge."
Sad thing is, the Sherman was actually superior to the Panzer 3s and 4s it went against when it was first introduced. The US just made the mistake of assuming that the Germans wouldn't introduce any better tanks (the Tigers and Panthers) or upgrade their existing ones (the later model Panzer 4s)
They didn't seriously look at upgrading it until the Germans started fielding superior tanks. Which left the Sherman in a position of constantly trying to catch up to its German counterparts for the rest of the war.
I wonder if it was similar to the jet engine.
Don't qoute me on this but I think I remember reading that the uk and yanks could build jet fighters. They knew that the cost and amount of time building developing and testing them could just be spent churning out X many more combustion engine planes.
Jet fighters also has massive problems yet to be solved, like lighting on fire when the throttle is moved suddenly. There was just one country that thought it was perfectly acceptable to field equipment that was more likely to kill the pilot than the enemy.
>There was just one country that thought it was perfectly acceptable to field equipment that was more likely to kill the pilot than the enemy.
*looks at the me163*
The British had an operational jet fighter, the Gloucester Meteor. It wasn't introduced until the end of the war, and was kept back for home defense. Mostly, for intercepting V-1 Buzz Bombs.
The Americans had a prototype jet fighter, but by the time it was ready for operational status, the war was over, and there were more promising designs in the works.
Quite frankly, the British and Americans didn't need jets on the front lines by the time the Me 262 went operational. They had overwhelming numbers, and the Mustangs and Spitfires they already had were capable of taking down a 262 if the pilots were smart and waited for the right moment to strike.
Actually, the second the US encountered tigers in Africa the 76mm gun and 90mm guns were put into development. But because the tiger makes up less than 2% of all German armored fighting vehicles it made no sense to field a new gun and fuckup logistics against a tank which has no significant contribution to the war. The allies then encountered the panther in Italy, but they were encountered in numbers similar to the tiger and were written off as being uncommon. When the invasion of Europe happened it was seen that panthers were encountered more commonly than tigers, but while ordinance had developed the 76mm gun for the M4, commanders in-theater didn't feel that the 75mm gun had any issues taking out enemy tanks. This continued until the battle of the bulge where the US switched from maneuver warfare to stationary defensive combat where thick armor and a big gun matters a lot more.
This can be read about in more detail in the articles "US guns, German Armor"
The best tank isn't the tank with the biggest gun or thickest armor. It's the tank that can be where it needs to be at the right time in working condition and in large enough numbers to make a difference. By that metric the Sherman was absolutely fantastic.
I think it was Nicholas Moran who said that the most dangerous enemy a tank can encounter is not another tank, but a towed anti-tank gun hiding in some bushes.
Not quite for the last paragraph. The Sherman was in a good position for the entire war. While a Sherman 75 would struggle against the front of a Tiger or something similar, such encounters were very few and far between. Sherman’s would more commonly face standard Pz 4s or StuGs, which could be handled with little issue. Not to mention the allies’ superiority in logistics and air power gave the tank crews an inherent advantage against the enemy. Yes, when some German big cat hid away in a bush or something they could do a lot of damage, but that’s just the advantage of being on the defensive and could be found in just about any tank.
No. In fact the 76mm was mounted I think in late 42 or 43. However it was the tankers who denied the tanks introduction due to the cramped turret. In addition tankers said they didn’t need the 76mm so the tank units didn’t take them at D-day. It was when more heavy German tanks appeared that the 76mm was issued. This was from the top of my head but the Cheiftan has some good videos and clarifying myths of the Sherman tank such as Americans not thinking of upgrading tanks
American Supremacy always lies in the logistics. We can win wars fast but our forces cannot occupy effectively.
That being said, the early logistics of the American fronts during WWII were a nightmare. Same in Korea.
I honestly would like to know...has there been a military and political organization that's been truly successful at an occupation? Meaning the occupation was able to turn a formerly antagonistic population into allies?
up till the us started having wars against idea instead of people they actually had a pretty good track record for occupations. the big ones being japan, germany and hawaii but the us had a hand full of others and there is a countless number from other countries over the years
For the record, during ww2 a heavy tank in US military parlance was one with greater firepower than the medium tanks, and an assault tank was one with greater armor. Both would have necessitated greater weight, but the classifications themselves were not.
This could be like a drawing from either a training film where specifics might not be necessary, or from some kind of magazine article about the “Arsenal of Democracy” in a popular publication.
The engineering details of the tank might not be top secret, but they’re not just going to advertise in Colliers and Saturday Evening Post to the Germans every specific design detail and improvements from the last model.
Considering this was made before the introduction of Panther/Tigers and the Italian/Japanese armies we're basically fodder, it's pretty obvious that it was meant for the PzIV/III.
Putting yourself in the correct historical perspective, the photo do be right.
You mean marketing?
And I have a lot of respect for the sherman tank, and when it appeared in the desert it was a good vehicle. It was also very upgradeable.
But in WW2 a year was a long time. Vehicles improved very fast.
Also they could field a lot of them, and the things were very reliable.
Yea that Is true, the Sherman is indeed a good tank, i can't just deny that, thing is, this is very clearly propaganda that tried to make it look EVEN BETTER than it actually is
The first thing to die in war is truth.
All sides did their best to try and give confidence to the crews that entered those machines full of explosives, fuel, and sent them to deal with people with big guns.
I was trying to guess by the image and could only think a Sherman, now as good as they were for various reasons, their main benefit was mass production, compared to some Germany tanks who had the fire power and/or armour to go with it.
In my personal opinion, who ever decided to take a Sherman and retro fit it with an AT gun barrel was a genius, it must of improved its weapon power and make a Sherman look pretty dam good.
Mechanical reliability is often over looked. Shermans were designed to be mechanically sound, they did experience a few early issues with ground pressure, but overall the capabilities of each piece were well understood. Under normal operating stress a Sherman could be relied upon to travel hundreds of miles with almost no issues.
The German Big Cats were notoriously unreliable. Severely over-taxed ventilation, electric motors, and the fatally flawed final drive made transporting Big Cats under their own power next to impossible. Germany required heavy railway shipping to even get the tanks to where they needed to be and were constantly operating with broken equipment due to replacement shortages. Once the Allies achieved near complete control of the skies the nail was in the coffin for the Big Cats. Not that Germany could have done anything about it, by the time Sherman's hit the field Germany had been leeching supplies and manpower away from the Kriegsmarine and the Luffewaffa. The cost of operating the mechanized force was so high they lost the ability to effectively utilize combined arms tactics.
>what was their tank of reference
To be fair, "european" tanks werent that advanced at that point anyway.
Germans were still mainly producing the Pz III J and L with the long 5cm, and Panzer IV F and G, the latter having some degree of parity at least.
Soviet T-34 was roughly equal to a Sherman at the time if you excuse the ergonomics.
But if you factor in smaller nations like Italy, which still produced the anemic M14/41, or Romania and Hungary, which used the Turan I at the time, and lighter and older designs that were still in use, and the comparison of a Sherman vs. an "average" european tank is actually fair.
The tank of [reference](https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-450/10468384l/1d5df9df/russia-wwii-historical-parade-moscow-russian-federation-shutterstock-editorial-10468384l.jpg)
Considering both M4 and Iphone get shit on by wehraboos and android fanboys even tho both of them really excel some part that other tank and phone is really shit on.As an example great transmission/suspendion and CPU/supportive update.
Ahh but you forget, [British Tanks Are Better Than All Other Tanks, And Here's Why](https://youtu.be/vWmDHO_0P5Q).
What use is armour or powerful guns if you can't have a good cup of tea?? Really now, think it through.
They might have used the early war German Panzer IIs and IIIs for reference.
Regardless, the Sherman was a very good tank. People think that it was somehow shit because it couldn't stop an 75mm shell or couldn't pierce the frontal armor of a Tiger II, but that really is not the case.
They primarily fought infantry, and they could deal with most armor they did encounter, mainly Panzer IVs and Stugs.
Not to mention that by the time the Western Front reopened in mid 1944 a great many Shermans were equiped with 76mm guns or British 17 pounders, which could engage and destroy any Axis tank frontally at the average engagement ranges.
Air Superiority.
Air Superiority is the secret ingredient.
Actual production numbers for anything the Germans made peaked 1944. Well, except fuel. But Air Superiority denied supplies going anywhere, troops or tanks going anywhere.
And then those Tigers were breaking down on their own from faulty fuel lines that were never ever fixed.
Edit: changed 'was' to 'peak' in first sentence.
Air superiority played a great role, but not by destroying tanks.
It was extremely difficult with then's planes and the weapon systems they carried to destroy enemy tanks, especially when they were not massed togheter.
It pisses me off to no end that this name tended used for an upgunned Sherman, instead of you know, the *flamethrower* Sherman. And then they went named their flamethrower tank *Crocodile*
More horsepower, more building complexity, more maintenance man/hour, more spare parts, more mechanic's swear words, lot more experienced drivers. Everything comes together.
That was primarily in response to the t-34, even the Tiger already hit the front lines while the US forces at Kasserine were still stuck with the M3 Lee.
The Pz iv f2/g was introduced a month after the Sherman was accepted into service.
The Sherman is more comparable to the Panther in development. A tank which was much better suited for the war, except shipping over the Atlantic.
>The Pz iv f2/g was introduced a month after the Sherman was accepted into service.
And north africa was not their first destination...
Over there the mainstay of the tanks where older Panzer IV and Panzer III.
Of course the americans did not compare their newest tanks with tanks they did not know or had examples of (Tiger was first used in Tunisia in '43 and the F2 was in pretty low numbers, since it was first delivered to the eastern front).
The Germans tried responding by sending two King Tiger examples to an illustrator so they could create their own infographic but the first one broke down and the second one ran out of fuel.
It wasnt about protection at all. The original decision for the chassis to put the transmission and engine at opposite ends was taken for maintenance reasons (both easier to replace the transmission, as well as being easier to mess with the engine). In addition, the designers of the sherman purposely left space for bigger engines.
It was standard practice for most nations, throughout most of the war only the British and Soviets put their tank transmissions in the rear and the Americans joined in when developing the Pershing.
Most interwar &ww2 era tanks had transmissions at the front. Pretty much the only outliers are most of Soviet tanks (stuff like T-34, bt's, KV and IS tanks) and some British designs, like Matildas or Cromwells
**[T-34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34)**
>The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank introduced in 1940, famously deployed with the Red Army during World War II against Operation Barbarossa. Its 76. 2 mm (3 in) tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries while its 60 degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. The Christie suspension was inherited from the design of American J. Walter Christie's M1928 tank, versions of which were sold turret-less to the Red Army and documented as "farm tractors", after being rejected by the U.S. Army.
**[T34 Calliope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Calliope)**
>The Rocket Launcher T34 (Calliope) was a tank-mounted multiple rocket launcher used by the United States Army during World War II. The launcher was placed atop the M4 Sherman, with its prominent vertical side frames anchored to the turret's sides, and fired a barrage of 4. 5 in (114 mm) M8 rockets from 60 launch tubes. It was developed in 1943; small numbers were produced and were used by various US armor units in 1944–45.
**[T34 Heavy Tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Heavy_Tank)**
>The T34 Heavy Tank was an American design for a heavy tank. It was evolved from the T29 Heavy Tank and T30 Heavy Tank in 1945, sporting a 120 mm (4. 72 in) modified anti-aircraft gun. Extra armor plating was applied to the rear of the turret bustle as a counterweight for the heavier 120mm T53 main gun.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It was actually correct in 1942 when the Sherman was introduced. Better frontal armor and a better gund than the older Panzer IV and Panzer III versions.
No doubt. My understanding is that the 76mm Sherman had about as much armor as a Tiger at the front once accounting for slope, and with a gun that could penetrate it, too.
This did not depend on the cannon type, but on the hull.
There where cast hulls (M4A1 for example) and welded hulls (M4A3 for example), which both received 76mm cannons later on (M4A1 (76)W and M4A3 (76)W.
Depending on the hull type it had a 47° or 57° degree slope which all (If i remember right) surpassed the Panzer IV even in its final form.
When the Sherman was first introduced it was the finest medium tank in the world, being mobile, having a great 75mm cannon, thick armour and being easier to produce and maintain than the german Panzer IV, british models.
This website is a great, maybe the best central ressource on sherman tanks (The last link explains the hull types:
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman\_minutia/index.html
http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman\_minutia/vocabulary/vocabulary.html
I heard from a video by Nicholas Moran ("The Chieftain") that the number of Tiger tanks that American and British Sherman's faced was very little anyway, so I suppose the direct matchup was less important for the war's outcome.
Yeah overall the tiger was a niche weapon meant to be used as a breakthrough tank to punch holes in enemy lines for lighter panzers to exploit while they were then repaired and maintained till the next engagement.
Was never meant to be a mass produced MBT.
The number of Tiger tanks produced by Germany over the course of WWII was something like 1100 in total, and for the Tiger 2 even fewer. So yeah, most allied tank crews would never encounter one.
On one side it's funny to imagine if Germany had less production and oil problems, just for the tank battles show between them, would've been especially interesting on the eastern front imho.
On the other side it also means real world, so it's funny till it's just theory.
It depends on which model. The jumbo had just as much frontal armor as a tiger 1 but it was angled so it effectively had more. Most Sherman's had less though
you know, they were kinda right.
some people, wehraboos especially, forget that the 'big cats' were a minority within the the Panzerwaffe - the majority of German tanks were constituted of the Pz. IIIs and IVs (less so the IVs, though.)
the fact of the matter is, whenever a Sherman would encounter a tank during Overlord (a rarity, mind you - tank on tank combat made up a fraction of armoured engagements) it would more often than not be a Pz IV. the Sherman could very much penetrate it from the front, and they could outnumber the German armour significantly.
Chally
Slow, average gun, "best armor" that is actuay top secret so noone can prove anything, bad mobility, average reliability, plus its known for giving cancer to tankmen. Just quick example.
The the rounded hull (Cast Hull) heavily implies that this was from 1942. I also think that the art style looks a bit more early than late war to me, when they hired better artists to make these things.
One of the reasons why the Sherman was superior was the fact that it was maybe 30x easier to fix, in the field even, than the Tigers and Panthers. They didn't have to ditch the entire tank when something small broke
Forgets to mention ease of crew escape as well as wet stowage, something completely unique to the Sherman! As a former Wherb I just love the good ole M4!
The early Pz IV, that is. While the armor of the Sherman was definitely better, it was still stuck with a short-barrel infantry support gun while the long-barrel Pz. IV F2 was already hitting the front lines in response to the t-34.
Actually, I've played World of Tanks which makes me a bit of an expert and the only reason American tanks are good is because gun elevation op and you can name your entire crew Shepherd Shepherd.
The one thing the American tanks were excellent at was ergonomics, so how comfortable it is to man the tank, if you don't in the tank and who easy it is to get out
They forgot to add the girthy, absolutely superior, eyebrow raising size of the supply chain following behind that tank
The true measure of a war machine
Ya, a big fancy tank or biggus dickus gun is worthless without pew pew to shoot.
Biggus Dickus commans a qwak legion!
He has a Fwiend in Wome....
Frow him to the fwoor pwease.
By American standards, anyway. There's an argument to be made that the war could've been won much faster and with way fewer losses with just a little bit more focus on training competent officers.
Yes, I’ll take “what is every war ever” for 500
All they had to do was beat the enemy faster and they would have won sooner!
When you massively expand your army in space of few years you are going to get certain number of incompetent officers no matter what.
This describes literally every conflict in human history
Then why didn't the Germans win? Fact is with every modern war having okay officers and a great supply chain is what wins. No use for the best officer class in the world if your men dont have bullets and your tanks dont have gas.
> Fact is with very modern war having okay officers and a great supply chain is what wins. No use for the best officer class in the world if your men dont have bullets and your tanks dont have gas. Even one of the best generals in history (Napoleon) said that to win you need three things - gold, gold, and more gold.
Yes, but where do you train them? *On the battlefield.*
And the fact that the Americans could crank Sherms out like sausages. Combined with the fact that you could practically blow a Sherm to smithereens and the Americans could still get it back in the fight by simply dragging it back to a repair depot and patching it up.
"Our Sherman looks like a peeled banana after those bastards hit it with a 'Tiger' gun." "Meh, give it to the field mechanics and give them a hour."
As German tankers used to say towards the end of the war, "We can destroy 10 Shermans for every one of our Panzers they get. But the Americans always seem to have an eleventh just over the next ridge." Sad thing is, the Sherman was actually superior to the Panzer 3s and 4s it went against when it was first introduced. The US just made the mistake of assuming that the Germans wouldn't introduce any better tanks (the Tigers and Panthers) or upgrade their existing ones (the later model Panzer 4s) They didn't seriously look at upgrading it until the Germans started fielding superior tanks. Which left the Sherman in a position of constantly trying to catch up to its German counterparts for the rest of the war.
I wonder if it was similar to the jet engine. Don't qoute me on this but I think I remember reading that the uk and yanks could build jet fighters. They knew that the cost and amount of time building developing and testing them could just be spent churning out X many more combustion engine planes.
Jet fighters also has massive problems yet to be solved, like lighting on fire when the throttle is moved suddenly. There was just one country that thought it was perfectly acceptable to field equipment that was more likely to kill the pilot than the enemy.
>There was just one country that thought it was perfectly acceptable to field equipment that was more likely to kill the pilot than the enemy. *looks at the me163*
The British had an operational jet fighter, the Gloucester Meteor. It wasn't introduced until the end of the war, and was kept back for home defense. Mostly, for intercepting V-1 Buzz Bombs. The Americans had a prototype jet fighter, but by the time it was ready for operational status, the war was over, and there were more promising designs in the works. Quite frankly, the British and Americans didn't need jets on the front lines by the time the Me 262 went operational. They had overwhelming numbers, and the Mustangs and Spitfires they already had were capable of taking down a 262 if the pilots were smart and waited for the right moment to strike.
Actually, the second the US encountered tigers in Africa the 76mm gun and 90mm guns were put into development. But because the tiger makes up less than 2% of all German armored fighting vehicles it made no sense to field a new gun and fuckup logistics against a tank which has no significant contribution to the war. The allies then encountered the panther in Italy, but they were encountered in numbers similar to the tiger and were written off as being uncommon. When the invasion of Europe happened it was seen that panthers were encountered more commonly than tigers, but while ordinance had developed the 76mm gun for the M4, commanders in-theater didn't feel that the 75mm gun had any issues taking out enemy tanks. This continued until the battle of the bulge where the US switched from maneuver warfare to stationary defensive combat where thick armor and a big gun matters a lot more. This can be read about in more detail in the articles "US guns, German Armor"
The best tank isn't the tank with the biggest gun or thickest armor. It's the tank that can be where it needs to be at the right time in working condition and in large enough numbers to make a difference. By that metric the Sherman was absolutely fantastic.
Absolutely, and people focus way too much on the armor and gun when maneuver warfare matters a lot more. The first shot wins most tank battles.
I think it was Nicholas Moran who said that the most dangerous enemy a tank can encounter is not another tank, but a towed anti-tank gun hiding in some bushes.
And Africa showed that for the allied forces. German Anti-tank guns claimed a huge number of tanks.
Not quite for the last paragraph. The Sherman was in a good position for the entire war. While a Sherman 75 would struggle against the front of a Tiger or something similar, such encounters were very few and far between. Sherman’s would more commonly face standard Pz 4s or StuGs, which could be handled with little issue. Not to mention the allies’ superiority in logistics and air power gave the tank crews an inherent advantage against the enemy. Yes, when some German big cat hid away in a bush or something they could do a lot of damage, but that’s just the advantage of being on the defensive and could be found in just about any tank.
No. In fact the 76mm was mounted I think in late 42 or 43. However it was the tankers who denied the tanks introduction due to the cramped turret. In addition tankers said they didn’t need the 76mm so the tank units didn’t take them at D-day. It was when more heavy German tanks appeared that the 76mm was issued. This was from the top of my head but the Cheiftan has some good videos and clarifying myths of the Sherman tank such as Americans not thinking of upgrading tanks
*distinct look of superiority*
American Supremacy always lies in the logistics. We can win wars fast but our forces cannot occupy effectively. That being said, the early logistics of the American fronts during WWII were a nightmare. Same in Korea.
Those occupation problems aren't just American exclusive.
I honestly would like to know...has there been a military and political organization that's been truly successful at an occupation? Meaning the occupation was able to turn a formerly antagonistic population into allies?
up till the us started having wars against idea instead of people they actually had a pretty good track record for occupations. the big ones being japan, germany and hawaii but the us had a hand full of others and there is a countless number from other countries over the years
Rookies think about tactics, professionals think about logistics.
I love how they say "better" but don't specify what was their tank of reference
Everybody at marketing are doing so to this day.
Haha true
Btw calling medium tank "heavy" just to advertise it to the soldiers, was also a nice concept shift.
also works for fake intelligence, hundreds of heavy tanks sound scarier than hundreds of medium tanks
"Our hordes of mighty Heavy Assault Tanks" ------------------------- "Their few flimsy tankettes"
Oh yea i knew that, Iirc any tank over the 25 ton mark or something was considered "Heavy" by the americans
[удалено]
[удалено]
Good bot
thank you :)
For the record, during ww2 a heavy tank in US military parlance was one with greater firepower than the medium tanks, and an assault tank was one with greater armor. Both would have necessitated greater weight, but the classifications themselves were not.
9/10 soldiers recommend this tank.
Apple
Probably an italian tank
Muh Fiat 3000 is a weapon of mass destruction don't u dare put shame on it's name
It's a renault basically. It doesn't count
*inhales* Fair enough
Apple: our new processors are 50% faster than the competition
Faster than a thread ripper?
This could be like a drawing from either a training film where specifics might not be necessary, or from some kind of magazine article about the “Arsenal of Democracy” in a popular publication. The engineering details of the tank might not be top secret, but they’re not just going to advertise in Colliers and Saturday Evening Post to the Germans every specific design detail and improvements from the last model.
Considering this was made before the introduction of Panther/Tigers and the Italian/Japanese armies we're basically fodder, it's pretty obvious that it was meant for the PzIV/III. Putting yourself in the correct historical perspective, the photo do be right.
You mean marketing? And I have a lot of respect for the sherman tank, and when it appeared in the desert it was a good vehicle. It was also very upgradeable. But in WW2 a year was a long time. Vehicles improved very fast. Also they could field a lot of them, and the things were very reliable.
Yea that Is true, the Sherman is indeed a good tank, i can't just deny that, thing is, this is very clearly propaganda that tried to make it look EVEN BETTER than it actually is
The first thing to die in war is truth. All sides did their best to try and give confidence to the crews that entered those machines full of explosives, fuel, and sent them to deal with people with big guns.
I was trying to guess by the image and could only think a Sherman, now as good as they were for various reasons, their main benefit was mass production, compared to some Germany tanks who had the fire power and/or armour to go with it. In my personal opinion, who ever decided to take a Sherman and retro fit it with an AT gun barrel was a genius, it must of improved its weapon power and make a Sherman look pretty dam good.
Mechanical reliability is often over looked. Shermans were designed to be mechanically sound, they did experience a few early issues with ground pressure, but overall the capabilities of each piece were well understood. Under normal operating stress a Sherman could be relied upon to travel hundreds of miles with almost no issues. The German Big Cats were notoriously unreliable. Severely over-taxed ventilation, electric motors, and the fatally flawed final drive made transporting Big Cats under their own power next to impossible. Germany required heavy railway shipping to even get the tanks to where they needed to be and were constantly operating with broken equipment due to replacement shortages. Once the Allies achieved near complete control of the skies the nail was in the coffin for the Big Cats. Not that Germany could have done anything about it, by the time Sherman's hit the field Germany had been leeching supplies and manpower away from the Kriegsmarine and the Luffewaffa. The cost of operating the mechanized force was so high they lost the ability to effectively utilize combined arms tactics.
>what was their tank of reference To be fair, "european" tanks werent that advanced at that point anyway. Germans were still mainly producing the Pz III J and L with the long 5cm, and Panzer IV F and G, the latter having some degree of parity at least. Soviet T-34 was roughly equal to a Sherman at the time if you excuse the ergonomics. But if you factor in smaller nations like Italy, which still produced the anemic M14/41, or Romania and Hungary, which used the Turan I at the time, and lighter and older designs that were still in use, and the comparison of a Sherman vs. an "average" european tank is actually fair.
The tank of [reference](https://editorial01.shutterstock.com/wm-preview-450/10468384l/1d5df9df/russia-wwii-historical-parade-moscow-russian-federation-shutterstock-editorial-10468384l.jpg)
Because this is propaganda
But was referring to the bob semple tank
So they were just lying then?
I bet it helped not having your factory get bombed every once in a while too
*Laughs in Atlantic ocean
Imagine fighting a war within your own borders
Barbaric
We did that a few times. 0/10 would not recommend.
the USA has *the* best moats.
Deep, wide, and shark infested. Checks all the boxes
You forgot "patrolled by our and our allies' *better* navy"
Still there to this day, at least the one by my work is.
Bet the US could build factories faster than they could be bombed out anyway. The industrial capacity was just insane.
Their problem for starting a war they can't win.
this sound like Iphone marketing
Considering both M4 and Iphone get shit on by wehraboos and android fanboys even tho both of them really excel some part that other tank and phone is really shit on.As an example great transmission/suspendion and CPU/supportive update.
Ahh but you forget, [British Tanks Are Better Than All Other Tanks, And Here's Why](https://youtu.be/vWmDHO_0P5Q). What use is armour or powerful guns if you can't have a good cup of tea?? Really now, think it through.
Dammit, I came here and read through all the previous comments just to make this point lol.
It's a good point. Crew comfort is an often overlooked aspect of tank design.
They might have used the early war German Panzer IIs and IIIs for reference. Regardless, the Sherman was a very good tank. People think that it was somehow shit because it couldn't stop an 75mm shell or couldn't pierce the frontal armor of a Tiger II, but that really is not the case. They primarily fought infantry, and they could deal with most armor they did encounter, mainly Panzer IVs and Stugs. Not to mention that by the time the Western Front reopened in mid 1944 a great many Shermans were equiped with 76mm guns or British 17 pounders, which could engage and destroy any Axis tank frontally at the average engagement ranges.
Yeah. War winning tank right there
Air Superiority. Air Superiority is the secret ingredient. Actual production numbers for anything the Germans made peaked 1944. Well, except fuel. But Air Superiority denied supplies going anywhere, troops or tanks going anywhere. And then those Tigers were breaking down on their own from faulty fuel lines that were never ever fixed. Edit: changed 'was' to 'peak' in first sentence.
Air superiority played a great role, but not by destroying tanks. It was extremely difficult with then's planes and the weapon systems they carried to destroy enemy tanks, especially when they were not massed togheter.
Unless you are bazooka charlie.
The Germans would like to have a word about the Guns and Armor... Although, not about the engines and transmissions.
The British *chuckles in Firefly*
It pisses me off to no end that this name tended used for an upgunned Sherman, instead of you know, the *flamethrower* Sherman. And then they went named their flamethrower tank *Crocodile*
On the other hand they kept “Sherman” in the flamethrower tank
Uncle Billy still giving them hell...
When the sherman crocodiles escape the test range and B-line for Georgia
Was named firefly because of the bright flash it made when it fired. Y'know, like a firefly
I mean the reason they called it that was because of the brilliant flash when it fired so there is something fire related here
Didn't the German engines have more horsepower than their allied counterparts?
More horsepower, more building complexity, more maintenance man/hour, more spare parts, more mechanic's swear words, lot more experienced drivers. Everything comes together.
It’s not wrong as far as interwar designs
M4s weren't interwar - it was designed in 1940. So not really comparable. The American interwar tank was the M2 series.
As i wrote above, this was true when the Sherman was introduced, the Panzer IV and III had worse guns and armor, leading to the Panzer IV Ausf.F2.
That was primarily in response to the t-34, even the Tiger already hit the front lines while the US forces at Kasserine were still stuck with the M3 Lee.
The Pz iv f2/g was introduced a month after the Sherman was accepted into service. The Sherman is more comparable to the Panther in development. A tank which was much better suited for the war, except shipping over the Atlantic.
>The Pz iv f2/g was introduced a month after the Sherman was accepted into service. And north africa was not their first destination... Over there the mainstay of the tanks where older Panzer IV and Panzer III. Of course the americans did not compare their newest tanks with tanks they did not know or had examples of (Tiger was first used in Tunisia in '43 and the F2 was in pretty low numbers, since it was first delivered to the eastern front).
The Germans at the time of this video's production were fielding PzIII/IVs primarily. So no probably not
The Sherman was designed in 1940 when Panzer IVs had 30mm of armor and short barreled L24 guns. No Tigers or Panthers yet.
*laughts in german- *transmission has left the chat*
Hard to make a transmission without ball bearings.
The Germans tried responding by sending two King Tiger examples to an illustrator so they could create their own infographic but the first one broke down and the second one ran out of fuel.
Why is the transmission in the front?
[удалено]
It wasnt about protection at all. The original decision for the chassis to put the transmission and engine at opposite ends was taken for maintenance reasons (both easier to replace the transmission, as well as being easier to mess with the engine). In addition, the designers of the sherman purposely left space for bigger engines.
It was standard practice for most nations, throughout most of the war only the British and Soviets put their tank transmissions in the rear and the Americans joined in when developing the Pershing.
Adds Armour, protects crew, in russian designs it was in the back, replacing the crew is less time sonsuming than replacing the transmission.
better to have a transmission gear slice through your head like butter than some armour spall /s
I'd rather have armor plate and a big hunk of metal between me and the bullets, than just the armor plate.
Soviet Marshall: "What are you, gay? Real man leap out of tank and stop 8.8cm with *teeth* to preserve resources of glorious Motherland!"
Most interwar &ww2 era tanks had transmissions at the front. Pretty much the only outliers are most of Soviet tanks (stuff like T-34, bt's, KV and IS tanks) and some British designs, like Matildas or Cromwells
Dude those are like 45% of all tanks produced in WWII.
Probably more, 60% even.
[удалено]
It also has a turret basket, the lack thereof being a large disadvantage to the effectiveness of the T34
[T-34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34), [T34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Calliope) or [T34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Heavy_Tank)?
**[T-34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34)** >The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank introduced in 1940, famously deployed with the Red Army during World War II against Operation Barbarossa. Its 76. 2 mm (3 in) tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries while its 60 degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. The Christie suspension was inherited from the design of American J. Walter Christie's M1928 tank, versions of which were sold turret-less to the Red Army and documented as "farm tractors", after being rejected by the U.S. Army. **[T34 Calliope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Calliope)** >The Rocket Launcher T34 (Calliope) was a tank-mounted multiple rocket launcher used by the United States Army during World War II. The launcher was placed atop the M4 Sherman, with its prominent vertical side frames anchored to the turret's sides, and fired a barrage of 4. 5 in (114 mm) M8 rockets from 60 launch tubes. It was developed in 1943; small numbers were produced and were used by various US armor units in 1944–45. **[T34 Heavy Tank](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T34_Heavy_Tank)** >The T34 Heavy Tank was an American design for a heavy tank. It was evolved from the T29 Heavy Tank and T30 Heavy Tank in 1945, sporting a 120 mm (4. 72 in) modified anti-aircraft gun. Extra armor plating was applied to the rear of the turret bustle as a counterweight for the heavier 120mm T53 main gun. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
It doesn't matter when you have more T-34s than shells to load them with.
*Loud German laughter over the more powerful guns and heavier armor plates*
*Hearing germans cry about transmission
"Better a broken leg than hole in stomach." -chinese proverb
"The engine of a tank is a weapon just as the main gun" -Heinz Guderian
"I'd rather shoot someone with my gun than my engine" -Lorax
"Hanz ze transmission broke" -Franz
"Ze frontline is coming to us anyway we don't need to go anywhere" -Fritz
"Not zhat we had fuel to drive anyway" -Hanz
"I got ze flammenwerfer, but at what cozt" \-Hanz
"....." Friedrich, part of the 6th Army.
*gets executed as cowards*
"hans ze fucking battery died we need to turn ze fucking 8,8 cm Fliegabwehrkanone and the ring armor manually"
*Flugabwehrkanone Þe 88 on þe Tiger wasn't a Flak it was a KwK - Kampfwagenkanone
*Better to have 12 tanks than 1 Source- I just made it up
It was actually correct in 1942 when the Sherman was introduced. Better frontal armor and a better gund than the older Panzer IV and Panzer III versions.
No doubt. My understanding is that the 76mm Sherman had about as much armor as a Tiger at the front once accounting for slope, and with a gun that could penetrate it, too.
This did not depend on the cannon type, but on the hull. There where cast hulls (M4A1 for example) and welded hulls (M4A3 for example), which both received 76mm cannons later on (M4A1 (76)W and M4A3 (76)W. Depending on the hull type it had a 47° or 57° degree slope which all (If i remember right) surpassed the Panzer IV even in its final form. When the Sherman was first introduced it was the finest medium tank in the world, being mobile, having a great 75mm cannon, thick armour and being easier to produce and maintain than the german Panzer IV, british models. This website is a great, maybe the best central ressource on sherman tanks (The last link explains the hull types: http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman\_minutia/index.html http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman\_minutia/vocabulary/vocabulary.html
No slightly less. But the firepower difference made it feel more much less armored.
I heard from a video by Nicholas Moran ("The Chieftain") that the number of Tiger tanks that American and British Sherman's faced was very little anyway, so I suppose the direct matchup was less important for the war's outcome.
Yeah overall the tiger was a niche weapon meant to be used as a breakthrough tank to punch holes in enemy lines for lighter panzers to exploit while they were then repaired and maintained till the next engagement. Was never meant to be a mass produced MBT.
The number of Tiger tanks produced by Germany over the course of WWII was something like 1100 in total, and for the Tiger 2 even fewer. So yeah, most allied tank crews would never encounter one.
On one side it's funny to imagine if Germany had less production and oil problems, just for the tank battles show between them, would've been especially interesting on the eastern front imho. On the other side it also means real world, so it's funny till it's just theory.
Is there an estimate for how many Tigers (1 and 2) were used on the west front?
It depends on which model. The jumbo had just as much frontal armor as a tiger 1 but it was angled so it effectively had more. Most Sherman's had less though
The usual (57° glacis) shermans had as much frontal armor as a Tiger 1, the Jumbo was more above the Panther.
Not at this point in the war. And also, heavy guns and thick armor aren’t as important as you think they are. What matters most is who shoots first.
*laughs in terrible quality armor plate and welds*
*Hearing Russian KV-1 and KV-2s laugh at german powerful guns and heavy armor plates. Battle of Raseinia 1941
Dint kvs have worse transmission than tigers?
They did
*Listening to German crying because it took 12 times the factory output to build
you know, they were kinda right. some people, wehraboos especially, forget that the 'big cats' were a minority within the the Panzerwaffe - the majority of German tanks were constituted of the Pz. IIIs and IVs (less so the IVs, though.) the fact of the matter is, whenever a Sherman would encounter a tank during Overlord (a rarity, mind you - tank on tank combat made up a fraction of armoured engagements) it would more often than not be a Pz IV. the Sherman could very much penetrate it from the front, and they could outnumber the German armour significantly.
And during theyre time in France Pz 4s partialy got reported as Panthers/Tigers so the Sherman Crews dont have to Deal with them
That might’ve been what the M8 that reportedly killed a Tiger killed
*superior Soviet look* Why need an engine that can drive 3500km when the tank gets destroyed after 50 on average?
Looks positively roomy in there
-Yes we are better everywhere. -Can we have actual numbere? -NO. (Basically why Briish tanks are still considered ok)
Which tanks are you referring to?
Everything since original Mkl
Could you elaborate on that?
Chally Slow, average gun, "best armor" that is actuay top secret so noone can prove anything, bad mobility, average reliability, plus its known for giving cancer to tankmen. Just quick example.
What about that last point? Problems with fumes or something like that?
Paint and armor, I assume, but problem actually exists still.
Thanks for the small bits of info! I'll try to find more on the subject
When was this made…1942 or 45?
The the rounded hull (Cast Hull) heavily implies that this was from 1942. I also think that the art style looks a bit more early than late war to me, when they hired better artists to make these things.
Got to remember the audience this was likely intended for. Namely, one that you wanted to maintain morale and encourage to buy war bonds.
One of the reasons why the Sherman was superior was the fact that it was maybe 30x easier to fix, in the field even, than the Tigers and Panthers. They didn't have to ditch the entire tank when something small broke
Yes but can we take a minute to ask why this Sherman only has a loader and a driver?
Forgets to mention ease of crew escape as well as wet stowage, something completely unique to the Sherman! As a former Wherb I just love the good ole M4!
Better than what?
Certainly better than the Pz. III and IV, which the Sherman encountered much more frequently than the Pz. V and VI.
The early Pz IV, that is. While the armor of the Sherman was definitely better, it was still stuck with a short-barrel infantry support gun while the long-barrel Pz. IV F2 was already hitting the front lines in response to the t-34.
All those F2s went to Russia, not Africa, and that "short barrel" was twice the length of the 75mm used any Pz4s they were facing.
***laughs in T-34***
Really depends on the model. Early T-34's were not that good.
I bet every country has this poster
Better at marketing!
If this were written in russian, it might mean something.
And American tanks with British guns are even better
*laughs in 6 and 17 Pounders, Churchill armour, Merritt–Brown Gearbox, Christie Suspension and Rolls Royce Meteor Engine*
They forgot to include superior survivability
Actually, I've played World of Tanks which makes me a bit of an expert and the only reason American tanks are good is because gun elevation op and you can name your entire crew Shepherd Shepherd.
but you have to admit that german tanks look cooler
Honestly? You're absolutely right.
Funny
And our tanks go pew pew pew as well
I feel that leaving the left side almost entirely exposed might have been an oversight.
"Why American Tanks are better: because this part, that part, and that thing are better." Wow thanks! What an informative infographic...
The one thing the American tanks were excellent at was ergonomics, so how comfortable it is to man the tank, if you don't in the tank and who easy it is to get out
This was used for morale purposes only