Sherman Tanks Brewed Up all the time. A WWII Myths show
With Nicholas Moran - The Chieftain
Part of our WWII Myths series of short shows
• WWII Myths - A series ...
This is a new type of show for the channel. Our guest historian will examine a popular claim made about the Second World War and either confirm or debunk it. There probably won't be time for questions from viewers but we hope the shorter length will be popular.
The Chieftain's Hatch
/ @thechieftainshatch
Please click subscribe for updates and the bell icon for notifications
You can become a Patron and support us here / ww2tv
You can become a KZhead Member and support us here / @ww2tv
Social Media links -
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
/ ww2tv
For First World War content follow our sister channel WW1TV
/ @ww1tvchannel
WW2TV Bookshop - where you can purchase copies of books featured in my KZhead shows. Any book listed here comes with the personal recommendation of Paul Woodadge, the host of WW2TV. For full disclosure, if you do buy a book through a link from this page WW2TV will earn a commission.
UK - uk.bookshop.org/shop/WW2TV
USA - bookshop.org/shop/WW2TV
Patreon Brigadiers: Susan Yu
Become a WW2TV Brigadier and become part of this Hall of Fame
/ ww2tv
Fun fact: all the sherman crew members complaining about how bad their Sherman was against a German cat actually survived the engagement to tell their story.
Another silly comment. Many Sherman crewmen did not get out of their tanks in time because they were wounded when their vehicles were struck and burned alive. Others that got of their tanks suffered horrible burns. Please do some historical research.
@michaelgreen5871 BS the Sherman literally had the lowest burn rate and the was second most survivable tank of ww2 idiot, you do your research.
A lot of them also complained for those companions that didn't make it.
@@michaelgreen5871 Why don't you do some? Infantry suffered a 16 percent KIA rate, tankers? 2 percent. That's 8 times safer than being a normal soldier, the armor must have...worked.
@@jacobpitts6846 or just watch tank talks where he discusses how easy it is to bail from a wrecked Sherman. The tank was designed with intuitive bail hatches that are placed in great locations.
My Uncle was a Tank driver during WW2. He served in North Africa and Normandy. He had 2 Shermans shot out from under him but survived both. He had a very positive opinion of the Sherman.
My uncle was a tank driver in 23rd Hussars in Normandy to the Baltic. He was brewed up many times, but finished the war. He was lucky.
Not just in military history, but in all kinds of fields, we tend to think past generations were stupid. In reality, they were as smart as us. They usually knew what they were doing.
The US had to build a lot of tanks quickly and be small enough to water ship it to Europe and it had to handle bridge loads
Stupid? They designed and built battleships and rockets and even the Apollos without computers or calculators. Just a slide rule and their big ass brains. If anyone is stupid, it’s us.
we reached the zenith of intelligence and education in the 60s 70s and 80s and its been downhill from there...there is less maturity mentally than before
As it turned out, they weren't stupid. They built exactly the tank they needed.@@partygrove5321
With the Sherman myths, it always bothered me that the same was not repeated about other tanks. The ammo placement was often cited as a cause of Sherman's brewing up problems, and yet, Tiger and Panther also have ammo racks in sponsons and the ammo placement is overall very similar. Cromwell, if my memory serves me right - ammo stored all around turret ring in bins. Panzer IV stores ammo directly behind the driver, with no cover whatsoever, so you'd imagine that half the frontal hull penetrating hits would cause a risk of ammo detonation. And don't get me started on Soviet designs. And yet, you do not see these complaints. This is something that always bothered me when reading about Shermans brewing up. It felt inconsistent. Like, we are complaining about this happening in Sherman, but not on any other tank? Truth is - Sherman was decent enough tank for the time, with some very nice features, like secondary gunner's sight on top of the turret, and gun stabiliser. Could it be better? Probably, but that can be said about just about any tank of the period as well - and not every tank had to compromise because of weight and size restrictions for Atlantic transportation purposes and hell, transport through US alone. Considering that with compromises needed there Sherman came out as good as it did is nothing short of miracle.
Also why did they keep using them after WW2 and how did they sell them to other countries if the tank was so crap?
I think there is a certain amount of pro German fetishism regarding equipment and weapons. The assumption is that German technology was far superior to that of the allies, despite obvious flaws which are too often overlooked.
❤😊😊😊😊😊
I remember reading 'With Rommel in the Desert' a memoir by one of his commanders, H. W. Schmidt. He remarked on his first encounter with a Sherman... hitting it on the turret with a 50 mm PAK gun... and watching the shot bounce off. He hit one in the side and watched it start to burn, thinking, 'So there's a weak spot even in this indestructible monster.'
"The decision has been made. I don't like the decision, but it's been made and we'll support it." That's what real leadership looks like. A person who understands they can't always get what they want. A person who understands their are different tradeoffs and possible solutions to any problem, and that you won't always get to use the solution you individually prefer (and sometimes it's Your decision that is in fact the wrong one in hindsight, not theirs). And that in order to preserve discipline and respect for those in command, you do not question the higher ups publicly, and you support their decisions publicly, and you do the best you can to make their decisions be successful (you do not seek to sabotage decisions you disagree with). And that by doing this, you're more likely to have your objections listened to later when you prove that you are a rational person, that your objections are rooted in actual facts and reality, and that even if things don't go your way you're still a team player and will support the final decision and carry out that method to the best of your ability. Parents, employers, bosses, managers, military leaders, and more can all learn from this. Need to learn this. Need to apply it like we used to.
The Sherman was not universally even disliked by its crews. Its Virtues were that it was easily transported by ship (given the crane max loads), relatively simple and easily maintained, lots and lots of them. A Sherman could take out Panthers and even Tigers if the tankers knew and applied sound tactics.
Any tank could take out another tank with sound tactics. Hetzers took out IS-2s. Ok that's a panzerjager but it's still something only one third its size. Nothing was invulnerable on its flanks.
I had a on line " discussion" with some one . His reasoning was that the allies were totally misguided in using the Sherman . That it was completely outclassed by German armor and it was to the point of criminal for US to use them My point was that the port loading facilities could not be counted on to handle heavier tanks and logistics had to be taken into account The speed , reliability and repairability balanced . He pointed out that allied crews had higher losses than any other branch of service, without taking into account that German and Soviet tank crews had just as high a loss As far as them not being able to go toe to toe with German armor, the 76 mm Sherman and the firefly could penetrate any enemy they ran into . Allies mixed tanks , so that they could handle any force they met . The German crews were Leary enough of them that they always took the fireflys and 76 mm Shermans first . The Germans knew they could take out German tanks at any reasonable range
@@outinthesticks1035 The irony is that when the Sherman came out in late 1942 it was well liked and able to take on anything (except the Tiger). However, by 1944 when the Germans were fielding more Panthers, Jagdpanzer IVs (and even Stugs with 80mm glacis) Sherman crewmen were grumbling about its anti tank performance. This got so bad that Eisenhower commissioned a special report and US 2nd Armored Division responded in detail in March 1945*. Even the 76mm Sherman was criticised for lack of hitting power without the rare HVAP. Without HVAP, the 76mm struggled frontally against Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanzer IVs, Jagdpanthers and even Hetzers unless at close range. * US 6th Armored Division also stated in early 1945 that present tanks were unsatisfactory due to a lack of capable anti tank gun. They had 76mm Sherman, so obviously were as disappointed in it as US 2nd Armored Division was.
Also Russian crews actually liked them a lot. Mainly for their amazing ergonomics and for how silent they were comparing to Russian tanks (T34 goes clackclackclackclackclackclackclack).
Also, I've been inside of a few tanks of the era. Sherman is not the most cramped of them all - quite spacious actually, quite comfortable, easy to get in and out.
Love The Chieftain. He's definitely at the forefront of the Sherman's reputation completely changing these past five to ten years. Tackled a lot of the myths, proved them wrong, and also wrote several articles on how good the Sherman was in reality. He's not the first to debunk all this stuff, but he was in a great position to spread this information in a way more easily digestible form to a 2010s teenager/young adult than reading a book by Zaloga, Doyle, or such. Pre-2010 or so these myths were still super prevalent and Tigers and Panthers were beloved by the general historical fanboy public. Nowadays the German cats are memed into oblivion while the Sherman enjoys FREQUENTLY being considered the best tank of WWII.
Actual exchange I had with someone many years ago Them: The Tiger was the best tank of war. It took 3 Sherman's to equal a Tiger! Me: But they made 1500 Tigers and we made 50,000 Sherman's. The long silent look of revelation on his face as he finally understood "the battle of the factories" was priceless.
There was no one best tank of WW2. It certainly wasn't the Sherman. Nobody being serious would claim the Sherman was the best tank of WW2. It had good points. It had bad points, like all tanks. Well, some didn't even have good points 😉. The Sherman might have been the best tank for the Americans but that's not the same as being the best tank of the war. By the way, a British medical report showed that the Cromwell was a bit safer.
Well, of course what he has done is spread a lot of bias disinformation which has been lapped up by those lacking the perspective to understand context . In this presentation you will note quite a bit of backtracking going on. Basically admitting that , yes , Sherman tanks burned quite regularly (so not a myth after all) and that petrol is unsafe in a closed space (well, no #### !) whereas diesel doesn't catch fire quite so readily ( you don't say ?!). And so on. It's true that nowadays the German cats are memed into oblivion but seventy five years ago , during the war , they were extremely dangerous and had to be fought to destruction. Edit : Tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks . Nobody has done more to spread that myth that Mr Nicholas Moran himself. More retconning !
The Cromwell might have been a game changer had it been in full production a year earlier.
Now we have a Sherman fanboy group that will not do any historical reseach on the vehicle and its flaws. Neither will they accept any historical evidence that conflicts with their unfounded beliefs.
This was a great collaboration. One thing that's often heard is how great the T-34 was, and how lousy the Sherman was. But no one brings up the combat stats of T-34 vs Sherman in Korea. Hint - the Sherman had a good kill ratio over the T-34. Maybe part of that was training, but part was that the Sherman was faster on target.
The Sherman was a testament to really intelligent design while staying in the framework of existing logistics and mass production. The "soft stats" like the ergonomics, large ammo load, crew survivability, and ease of maintenance, made a big difference in combat efficiency for the armored force as a whole. A lot of German tanks never made it to battle in time because they were stuck somewhere waiting on a train, bridging unit, or fuel truck.
British Shermans brewed up a lot, but that was because they kept stopping to make tea.
Very interesting. A steel tank without AC in the Sahara all day sun. It must have been nearly unbearable.
I remember seeing German films of the crew frying eggs on the tank surface .
Having worked on large aircraft in desert locations, and climbed into compartments in places like the tail area with zero airflow except the hatch used to access that compartment, I can tell you it gets almost unbearably hot. I was younger when I did that work, not sure I could do it now.
Yes, a tracked *Oven…*
The US tankers complained loudly about the heat inside their tanks when being trained by Patton in the Mojave Desert. Ordnance told Kelvinator to design an AC system for those which could be installed and removed out in the field. Kelvinator came up with an evaporative cooling system (Swamper) that worked well but was cancelled due to the Germans being defeated in North Africa sooner than expected.
The experience of watching your high speed digital thermometer fritz out from the heat, then telling the boys to get their kit on so we can roll out. Hooray! 😅
It had some faults, but it did what it was designed to do, was relatively cheap, reliable, easy to transport, easy to produce in large numbers, and could be repaired/maintained at or near the front. It won't win every battle, but it's what you want for winning a war.
That was a nice turn up for the books to have The Chieftain turn up to give his views.
This series of Myths debunking concept is genius.
Ian and bloke did one one firearms a while back it was excellent
And yet new ones appear that can be easily debunked with a bit of research.
I just finished reading Patton's memoir. He briefly mentions having tank crews remove the extra stuff from the tank because it wears down the tanks and makes the crews feel their tank is less survivable. He looked at it as a morale issue.
Perhaps Patton would have felt differently if he was compelled to serve in one of those tanks?
You were 5 times more likely to die as an american infantryman than as a sherman crew. Patton was still a whacko though
One thing not mentioned about gasoline vs diesel is that gasoline engine will *start* at -20 degrees in the European winter without special fuel additives needed. I’ve had diesel cars and trucks and made *damn sure* to buy “Winter” diesel when leaving CA, heading north or east into UT, CO, ID any time between December and March. Found this out the hard way, when my “West Coast” diesel turned into *Jello* after I spent the night in Provo, UT and the temperature dropped to 10 degrees that night! (I had to be towed to a warm shop and sit there for 3 hours until my fuel became liquid again!)
I’ve heard another story of a trucker who had the diesel in his tank freeze solid during a blizzard. He tried thawing it with a blowtorch, with predictable results.
The panther was a great tank. When it wasn’t broken down. When it had fuel. The Sherman didn’t have those issues.
The Sherman didn't break down? British 2nd Army during The Great Swan said otherwise and reported the Cromwell being more reliable.
@@lyndoncmp5751 The Sherman was a lot quicker to fix, two main reasons, the tans design and the superb logistics chain sat behind it.
@@gwtpictgwtpict4214 Not disputing that. Just that it didnt break down or have other issues.
@@lyndoncmp5751 …. The Sherman was built reliable, repairable, and had mechanics and spares readily at hand. Along with ammo and fuel supplies.
Great to hear this from The Chieftain, although I’ve heard this from him on his own channel. To bad you couldn’t get him to do that bit from his own channel where he has to fit inside some small, vintage AFV. Although, I’d suggest an old Mini Cooper. My wife and I took a tour of London in one this summer. It would be great fun to see him try and fold into one of those.
He did a model T Ford recently, that was a bit of an eye-opener in how small those were.
@@exharkhun5605- I have a friend only a block away with a Ford Mdl-T sitting in his carport, I'll have to ask for a check ride! I was working on a Lexus CT200h (basically a sported up Toyota Prius hybrid) today with a dead 12vdc starting batttery and found it painfully cramped inside- the owner is a maybe 5ft woman who loves it, these probably sold better in Asia!
Thanks. Always enjoy Moran.
For the algorithm! I must have missed what the occasion is for all of these amazing videos on all these fascinating topics of debate, but I’m sure glad your making them Paul! Truly we are being spoiled. Merry Christmas to you all, God bless !
The Kelly's Heroes impression being the cherry atop this delicious iced bun of a video, 2 of the best together, thanks
I have a radio-controlled Sherman tank. I painted and detailed it, love driving it around. But I do have a problem with labeling any tank as the "best." I firmly believe it depends on the mission, the terrain, the opposing force, and most of all the crew. Would I rather be in a Panther than a Sherman in a one-on-one encounter? Maybe. But US tanks were not meant to go one-on-one against enemy tanks anyway. They were supposed to break into enemy rear areas and rampage among supply depots and enemy headquarters, terrorize rear echelons and turn the flanks of an enemy formation. That was US armored doctrine, much like the role of horse cavalry a century earlier. That's why the most effective armament of the Sherman was supposed to be the machine guns. The Panther had an outstanding 7.5cm gun. In the hands of an inept crew, it meant nothing. The Panther's final drive was notoriously under-engineered, sometimes lasted no longer than than a full tank of gas, and the entire driver and radio operator compartment had to be dismantled in order lift out the final drive for repair. Reading SPEARHEAD by Adam Makos illustrated how tanks of all kinds were used and misused, how they died like flies against the wrong opponent or in the wrong terrain, and most of all how clumsy and cumbersome they were unless manned by an experienced crew. Tanks are fun, until you have to live and fight for your life in them. This episode was as good as it gets -- it busts myths without creating new ones. Yes, the Panzer Mk IVs were fast and nimble, the Mk Vs were designed with good intentions, and they were odds-on bets against the Sherman. Everyone used both gasoline and diesel, and everyone brewed up depending where they were hit. But there were 7,700 Panther and Tiger tanks in WW2. There were 50,000 Shermans. Yes, a Panther could outfight 2 or 3 Shermans. The problem was that there were always 4 or 5 more. It all depended on the mission, the terrain, the weather, the opponent, and most of all the crew.
I wasnt a tanker during my time but have got to be one for reenacting. I drive an M5A1 and can tell you that a Stuart that has been parked in the shade overnight will keep you cool for quite a few hours on a hot summer day but is rather uncomfortable in the afternoon. I cannot imagine doing it for real in the middle of winter.
Nicholas talking common sense explaining fact over fiction. The Sherman undoubtedly was the best and most successful tank of the war fought everywhere in every environment successfully. Continually improved to meet changing and challenging conditions of war, formidable.
There was no one best and most successful tank of WW2.
The Chieftain single handedly shaped the modern history of American ww2 armour
tanks huh ? what can you say. great show from nicholas and woody. thank you
Great show. So, the Shermans were Tommy Cookers, just not in the way everybody has been thinking. 😁
Love how chieftain mentioned the Operational Art of War. A masterpiece of a bygone era.
I don't think there's been one since IV. I still have the CD of that upstairs somewhere. There hasn't really been one like it since.
@@TheChieftainsHatch they re-released I-IV on Steam. It’s a bit glitchy, though.
Bonus with any tank in sunny North Africa was that you could fry an egg on it.
The trick would be getting the eggs.
Woody/Nicholas, Thanks for a very interesting chat. Really enjoyed it. Bob
Our pleasure!
Even if the German tanks had better armour and guns, with their issues regarding repair, maintenance and reliability, would you rather be a German or American/British infantryman requiring armoured support when the Shermans were far more likely to actually turn up? Another major point is that Shermans were built in the States - so would you rather have 4 Shermans per unit of shipping space or 1 Pershing? And then you have to get your tank from the docks at Liverpool to Southampton on a train - when it might not fit through the tunnel, never mind whether a French road bridge can support its weight. I'm admittedly missing out on a number of points/factors here, but ultimately the Sherman was the best tank of the war because it delivered the best bang for the buck.
Great show. Very enjoyable. Nicholas Moran has done a lot to change the mindset of the Sherman. Unfortunately (as you alluded to) a lot of people cherry pick and take it to the extreme and now I hear everywhere online that the Sherman was the best and safest tank of WW2. In reality, according to a British medical report it wasn't even the safest medium tank the British were using in 1944/45, with the Cromwell having a higher survival and lower injury rate. Cheers.
But the Sherman was a friendlier looking tank, to be sure! 🙂
LindyBeige did his Cromwell video based on a book that detailed one tank crew's experience. They found their Cromwell was faster than the rest and later on in action, they found rounds had hit the tank and not bounced off and it dawned on them that the tank was a training vehicle and did not have the requisite steel for combat use- thus it was lighter. They thought about it for a short while and then decided: "What the hell, we've survived so far- we'll carry on with it!" Clearly, they liked the extra speed etc and decided it had some advantages and they lived with the potential that if hit by heavier calibre ordnance, it was "game over" which never happened.
I saw that video too, and I put in under "entetaining, funny and most probably not true". There is no real weight difference between hardened and soft steel to begin with; not that it matters at least. But there were mechanics that could get a bit more power out of the Meteor engine than others. There were other parts in Lindy's video which fall under fairey tale as well, i.e. the "jumping Cromwell".
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Yes, indeed although it might be possible that a training Cromwell was missing a few items but its speed was as you mention down to something else not connected to its role as a trainer.
Graphic novelist Garth Ennis must have used that story too, that was the plot device for his graphic novel ‘World of Tanks: Roll Out’ in which a Cromwell crew in Normandy 1944 realise they’ve been sent a training tank in error that has thinner armour but higher speed.
Does LB quote his source? I believe it may be 'Troop Leader' by Bill Bellamy. As a training tank it could have involved thinner plates of regular steel: easier to weld and also lighter. Bellamy also writes about 'jumping' a stream.
He did- probably the book you mention but I am sure you can find his video with ease and confirm if it is that book.
My father was an electrician at El Alamein, he said the Sherman was a godsend, and only when US equipment arrived did they know the Germans had lost, the volume and quality and the food!
Great presentation from the Nicholas Moran. Highlighted the fact that no tank is invulnerable, and all weapons systems go through evolutions and improvements to address weaknesses and issues. How the tank is used in combined arms operations is really significant to how it performs.
Also almost all American NCOs, Officers were well trained in tank gunnery and firing on the move, plus ranging fire.
IIRC the "One flick" Ronson ad was from 1928. But during WW2 Ronson adverts in the US featured a tank shaped like the Sherman, which might just be where the link between the Sherman and Ronson.
Only found your channel over these last few months and I absolutely love it thanks for all the great content
Glad you enjoy it!
There's s website called TheShermanTank that goes into great detail about them and has several of their training manuals. It also discussed the catching on fire Ronson claims. That was due to crews storing extra rounds since they fired off so many that they were afraid of being caught short when encountering German tanks. They slso had an annoying problem with the shells separating from the cartridge when being handled with propellant spilling out. The crew kept water handy to pour over the propellant. That also happened when the rounds got smacked by solid shot or severely jarred with sparks igniting the propellant. Ordnance fixed that with the wet storage bins.
Thank you Paul and The Chieftain for this. These myth busters have been terrific.
The absolute best person to have bust this myth! WW2TV does it again!!
Nick is in North Texas?! ...yeah long sleeves, it must be "Winter". :)
When you said the topic was armour on the first attempt to do the livestream, I had wondered if you were getting The Chieftain on. I've heard this talk about Sherman's being much better tanks than they are given credit for a number of times, and it never gets old. Definitely a first class myth to get busted. Thanks!
What people need to get their minds around is the concept of 'Good Enough'.
Perfect is the enemy of good enough, and youll die waiting on perfect when good enough could have saved you yesterday.
Very interesting topic had me glued to the screen!. I have been interested in tanks for a very long time and reading the war diaries of British regiments in WW2, there was a genuine concern of the Sherman burning. So much so that when the Sherman was rebuilt as the Firefly, the ammunition was removed from the thinly armoured sponsons and placed in armoured bins on the floor of the tank. As for Sherman lethality the early versions were armed with a variant of the French M1897 field gun, it was in no way an anti-tank weapon! Indeed the little 6 Pounder could penetrate more armour with early APC ammo. I agree with you that WoT is creeping into the debate and some are now thinking the Sherman is a super tank.
By your logic, the German 8.8cm on the Tiger I, Tiger Ib (King Tiger/Tiger II), Jagdpanther, PaK 43, etc. Along with the American M3 90mm, 3-Inch gun, and the USSR 85mm are ALL not for fighting tanks as they were ALL derived from Anti-Aircraft guns. And no Sherman or even Lee/Grant used an M1987 field gun, they used the M2 and M3 cannons which while derivatives, were purposefully adapted to fit in and be used by and against tanks. And even if they did just use French 75's, IRL as a stop-gap until more M2/3 guns were available or a better TD was made, the US literally made a dedicated tank destroyer with every single one they had until they ran out and had to use the M2/3 guns derived from it for the rest since there was a need to quickly get as many as possible, this Tank Destroyer was the M3 GMC. Lastly, NUMEROUS field guns and howitzers of the Era had AP rounds available or the possibility to use them if made, and later even HEAT rounds for a few, as Anti-Fortification munitions which in this context was primarily reinforced concrete pillboxes, bunkers, and entire fort complexes, any emplacements really. Like the USSR's 152mm Anti-Concrete "AP" round, though the KV-2, SU-152, etc primarily used HE as they were more Assualt guns like Stugs and past a certain point even HE rounds are AP rounds, such as 152mm HE blowing the turrets off Tigers or the IS-2's 122mm HE being able to crack and start literally blasting apart the front hull of Pz.V Panthers within only 1-2 shots. Hell, IIRC even the Karl Gerat, or maybe it was Dora, regardless, even the German 800mm behemoths had and used AP rounds, one if which penetrated all the way through a lake and touched off the Soviet ammo dump the Germans didn't know was hidden under it.
@@pyro1047 You are really crediting me with a lot of stuff I did not actually say. Which launched you off into a rambling lecture on guns in general, which is off topic It was said in the show that the Sherman had a good gun. I was pointing out that the AP performance was lacking. The 75mm M2 and M3 guns derived from the M1897, were inferior, as the barrel lengths were considerably shorter. You are correct in that some WW2 field guns had AP shells made for them. But these were always inferior to high velocity Anti-Tank Guns of similar caliber. The A/Tk guns are rated for much higher breech pressures.
"152mm HE blowing the turrets off Tigers" Ive heard this Soviet claim but yet to see or read any real evidence of it. I think it should be thrown out with the "70 Tigers destroyed at Prokhorovka" nonsense.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Despite its large caliber the AP rounds were weak, on par with the 85mm mounted on the T-34/85. Though the later HEAT round would have been spectacular given the size.
I would observe that the tank destroyer battalions when they were stood up did not use a 'variant' of the French M1897 field gun. They actually used French M1897 field guns, complete with screw breech and lanyard as mounted on the M3 Gun Motor Carriage. The US Army very much felt that in 1941/2 the 75mm M3 was a serviceable gun for anti-armor use. And, in fairness, given what they were going up against at the time, they weren't really wrong.
Thanks for such an interesting discussion guys! Myth shows have been fantastic and very thought provoking.
Another brilliant show! Thanks very much.
Excellent episode!! The chieftain is the best source I know of for armored warfare stuff. I especially love his “oh my god the tank is on fire” demos.
Orchestra of combined effects...yes, Nick is right as usual. Every piece of equipment must be viewed in context.
Howdy folks. The great Chieftain destroys a number of Sherman and armor myths in this rabbithole. The man knows tanks and loves to share. Best possible source.
At the beginning of the war, ALL tanks with big guns burned on 75% to 85% of penetrating hits. Most nations considered this the cost of doing business with tanks and did nothing to fix it. The Americans were upset about this. They were so upset they invented wet stowage to fix the problem. The result was that, by the end of the war, American tanks were only burning on 5% to 10% of all penetrating hits while everyone else's tanks were still burning 75% to 85% of the time. That's the reality of the Sherman.
The sherman was a close second for most tank survivable (churchill #1, rule britannia) and the tank was used by numerous countries in multiple wars on all fronts The germans would often shoot the Shermans until they burned, which was usually after the crew bailed out, this is because the allies could repair them easily.
Great video. Was guilty of thinking the Sherman was really bad as a tank, i think some of the books back in my childhood weren't too kind to it. But as i grew older i did my own reading and with people like the Chieftain learned the Sherman was pretty damn good tank!
Great show. Like the new short versions. Easier to fit in in a busy family life. BUT the long ones are superior when it comes to information and depth!!!
Love the Kelly’s Heros reference. Love the discussion my impression was not that the Sherman was faulty but that it presented a large, tall target
M4 Height 9 ft 0 in-9 ft 9 in (2.74-2.97 m) depending upon variant Panther Height 2.99 m (9 ft 10 in) both Wackipedia
I know we all love the longer format shows, but a blend of the shorter stuff could be a really interesting way forwards Paul. Really enjoying them and keep up the good work.
I've been thinking about a move towards long format shows Tuesday to Friday and 3 short ones on "Manic Monday"
Kipling famously refers to Thomas Atkins as the stereotypical British soldier in his poem "Tommy". Supposedly, Thomas Atkins was the template name used for examples in how to fill out paperwork.
Tommy this and Tommy that....
Thomas Atkins was the name selected,as you say, for filling out the paperwork. The name was selected by the Duke of Wellington, the real Tommy Atkins was a sergeant major of whom he thought very highly.
Nicholas Moran is a wonderful presenter. He is intelligent and very well informed, and also articulate, witty, and personable. It's the perfect combination.
I have allways found it hillarious, that anybody would think, that the Germans called it a "Tommy cooker"- the hint being that Germans actually speak ..German!
Just finished Hans von Luck's autobiography. A man who can safely be said to know a bit about tanks on both sides in WW2. Particularly noted a number of occasions he describes Allied armour as being better than whatever he was in at the time. British recon vehicles in the desert, the Lee/Grant and, yes, Shermans. No equivocation, just that they were "better" or "good". This is quite apart from issues of relative numbers and the mechanical issues. As an aside, also of interest his mention of discussions with French friends as early as shortly after the Fall of France, to be repeated variously (though discreetly) with his Heer colleagues in following years, of how it was clear that Germany had lost the War the moment Britain refused to settle and following Operation Dynamo. He was quite candid too about how it was obvious nobody was taking preparations for Seelowe seriously.
Thanks for making these episodes of myth busting
I found the discussion on the gaming aspect at the end very interesting and I have a question for gamers as I am not one myself. Do you rely on the games for your knowledge and information about tanks, ships, aircraft etc or do you also collect and read books? As a modeller I have more books on aircraft, camouflage and markings and the like than I know what to do with (and yes some on targets, err I mean tanks) as well as general histories etc. As such one thing that bugs me big time are the people that colourise b & w photos, presumably going on what the computer programme tells them on a grey scale analysis, without having a real idea of what colours should or perhaps could have been used. At the same time being conscious that our understanding of what is what has changed over time. Thanks in advance!
A great show as always.
Nice to hear this again from the chieftain :)
My ass has gone numb. Been there, done that. lol Chieftan is superb as always!
This is a great series it would love to have a long form instead of the quick 20 minutes
very informative
I recommend listening to actual tank crewmen from the era, on both sides of the tank war. They did mention a lot of slang. I can't say for sure whether they read about it before the interviews though. I keep thinking about a half inch of stand off armor, sort of like the Germans did later on the P4. We always want to blame somebody... Logistics, like the delivery people said.
Great vid Paul I always enjoy an opportunity to lesson to The Chieftain. Question: are there stats as to the number of "runners" a Sherman tank battalion had each day compared other tank types because if it ain''t "running" not much else is of much importance. Let me thank both of yo again for a very informative and enjoyable half hour.
Or the line from the movie Patton: 'Our tanks are gasoline, theirs are diesel.' Uh... no. Even IMDB has this listed as a goof.
LOL....Chieftan's like 'Fury'....Brad's Sherman smashing the whole German army.....Cheiftan's sat there at the crossroads batting away furiously at the critics of his beloved Sherman.
I definitely can understand that the phrase "Tommy Cooker" comes from the heat inside the tank as it bakes in the sun. Been there and done that. The M60A3 had 105mm rounds stored all around the turret. People forget that up to that point there were no blast door separating the ammo from the crew compartment in US tanks.
Thank you Gents! Absorbing and addictive!
The Chieftains test, "Bugger, the Tanks on fire" explains it all.
Excellent.
Great stuff!!!
Thanks!
Great series of talks
In the regimental history, The South Alberta's, is a photo of a SHERMAN pierced by a dozen rounds of anti tank , or tank on tank fire, making the point that the Germans, because the Sherman had not brewed up, believed the poor thing had not been hit at all. If they had hit it, it would have brewed up. So they just kept hitting and hitting and hitting it. Because Sherman's always brewed up.
That's absolutely correct. Lots of things made a tank stop, quite besides being hit by a shell. I'm sure I've seen a German tank vet talking to the effect that, if you found a halted tank on the battlefield and it wasn't smoking, you put rounds into it until it was. If you were feeling civilised you might let the crew get away first.
Great video
Gotta love the Beavis reference: "Fire, Fire!"
could have listened for hours
Love this
I loved that Grey Poupon ad.
All tanks "brewed up" all the time, especially if they got hit 😅
Oh man, I'm sorry I missed this! I did advise you to call the Chieftain, didn't I?
Excellent interview. I'm wondering if there has been research done on how mechanically reliable the M-4 Sherman performed in the field, especially in adverse weather conditions. Also how quickly could the tank be serviced and put back in action. This might be an ignorant question from me as an amateur history buff but in the terrain of western Europe with forest, winding roads and uneven terrain, was having better range with more power actually an advantage for a tank when your line of sight was so impeaded? It wasn't like the desert of N. Africa.
I understand that many British tank crews in Normandy over loaded their tanks with ammunition before conducting operations. Perhaps this assisted in increasing the flammablility of their vehicles?
Basically, the Sherman did brew up a lot. But so did every other tank in the war. And the Sherman didn't brew up at a significantly higher rate than any other tank in the war. And by the end of the war the Sherman was brewing up significantly less than other tanks. The wet stowage helped. But from what I hear the thing that made the biggest difference in the brew up rate was that crews stopped over stuffing their tanks with extra ammunition. This is apparently a lesson that has to be relearned in every single war. If you'll recall the great turret-toss Olympics of 2022, the Russians seem to have gone through the same thing in Ukraine. T-72/80/90 tanks actually shouldn't toss their turrets nearly as high or as often as we saw them doing. And in fact the ammunition carousel is actually a fairly small target that you wouldn't expect to hit every time the tank is penetrated. The problem is that the Russians were probably* stuffing lots of extra ammunition in their tanks. So when the tank was penetrated, even if the spall missed the carousel, some of the spare ammunition crammed into a corner would get hit and set off the rest of the ammunition in the tank. We've been seeing fewer turret tosses lately, so it seems they've learned the lesson. But for the tankers who fight the next war, so you don't have to relearn the same lesson again, don't fill every corner of your tank with spare ammunition (should be less of a problem with NATO tanks though, since the very existence of dedicated storage areas with blowout panels should make crew members very aware that it isn't safe to store ammo anywhere but the dedicated storage areas)! * I say *probably* because, as far as I know, we don't actually know what the Russian crews were doing. But this seems like the most plausible explanation.
Well, we do know that Russian tank turrets are made of sturdy laminated chicken fat. That might have something to do with it.
So, is there going to be a "Mystery Myth" episode? Tune in and find out what it is...? A pinned comment after the show could give the subject. Crazy idea?
My father was a loader/radio-operator in a GGHG S Herman with the 17pdr. gun. He told me that their tank was hit and burned. He and I presume the rest of the crew got out.
Semi serious comment : so Kelly's Heroes is still the best depiction of Shermans in WW2 😂 oh except the Moriarty "it's a piece of junk" ....... Why the negative vibes Moriarty ? 😅
Except his "when we were in the Bocage country we were assaulted by them Tigers". Of course, none of the three Tiger battalions in Normandy were engaging the Americans in the Bocage. Moriarity must have confused the Panthers of 2nd SS for Tigers. 😉
Wonder how many people would play those games if they could simulate exactly what it was like to be in a tank in combat. Without the getting injured or killed of course. The heat, noise, etc.
I agree with your comment
...and all those in field repairs.
The German tanks Panzer 4, Panther, Tiger tanks were made with weak armour plates including the Hetzers, Jag- panthers and Stugs by 1942 the steel was not manufactured with Manganese and Validonum treatment on the steel, this was plentiful in U.S.S.R and Sweden the lack of this alloys on German armour cause spalling inside the tank which is deadly fragmentation metals sharpnels. The German tanks burn the same rates has the early M4 Sherman tanks, the M4 easy 8 Sherman dropped the burn rate down.
The Tiger I never suffered from plate quality defects and Tom Jentz found no evidence to indicate it whatsoever. In fact the Tiger I had probably the highest quality steel of any tank of WW2. It had unique nickel-steel of 265 Brinell Hardness on its front. British tests concluded this was 12% stronger than any allied steel. Even the 80mm side plates had the effective equivalent of over 90mm of the best allied tank steel. This is why shots that should have penetrated it on paper often didnt. Source. Tom Jentz, Germanys Tiger Tanks. For the Panther it was hit and miss. Around 1 in 3 Panthers in 1944/45 had lower quality steel.
@@lyndoncmp5751tankarchives article title 2020/02/thick-skin-of-german-beast mention how brittle the Panther and Tiger tanks the high spalling effect the 75mm, 76mm, 85, 90mm and 95mm allied tank fire effects on German Armored is well documented.
@@bjornsmith9431 Take that pro Soviet website with a pinch of salt. It's notoriously as pro Soviet as some sites are pro German. Dare I use the term Commirboo? Tiger I didn't have brittle armour, while the western allies didn't report the exaggerated deficiencies in the Tiger II plate as the Soviets did. The Soviets literally claimed Tiger II welds split and plates fell apart when hit, yet western allied reports don't mention this despite facing Tiger IIs built in the same Henschel factory. There are literally close up pictures of Tiger IIs with shell hits directly on the weld seams and they haven't split and plates haven't fallen apart. Even at point blank range. Yes Tiger II steel plate wasn't the very high quality of the Tiger I but it's sheer thickness tended to balance this out and it was certainly an extremely well protected tank. Of course, some spalling inside occurred (not to any great extent however) but for the Tiger I at least the British in their A.T. 252 report stated ''Unlike previous experiences with Panther tanks, the armour plates, with one exception (hull roof) did not show any marked tendency of brittleness, and their behaviour was not unlike British machinable quality plates.'' Another British report on the Tiger I armour: "All of the plates were determined to be equal to or slightly better than British machineable quality I.T.80F plates when struck at normal and significantly better than British plate when struck at an angle" There are lots of pictures of Tiger I penetrations on testing grounds and they generally look clean pens without tell tale shattering and evidence of brittleness. Remember the Soviets often took results on tanks that were hit repeatedly a dozen and more times. This is going to eventually weaken the plate.
The American tanks used a softer armor than the German tanks. But, for the thickness used wasn't that bad. With the use of wet storage, the burn rate went down. Except they started over storing ammo, so the protection did do as much good.
I remember my uncle Tony L. Who fought in Europe during WW2 talking about how terrible the M4 tank was. He had to recover the tanks and help repair them if it was possible. He cried and said so many men were killed.
I'm sure that the German crews that were tasked with recovering Tiger tanks were upset with the number of crew members killed. People whose entire job is dealing with battlefield losses are not necessarily going to have the same perspective as people who deal with the units that survive and succeed.
Bennet Cooper’s book on the the Sherman tanks “Death Traps”. Although very knowledgeable about the vehicles but with some strict views. Take his complaint that the Pershing should have been employed earlier and make reference to Patton be a cause of the policy to not move it a long. If you knew the situation of the time, Patton was still in the “doghouse” and probably just read of the High Command’s policy, not his as he had no influence over the policy. Plus the size of the tanks and ships available for transport was an issue. One thing that Patton ordered that I disagree with was not insuring the star on the side of tanks. That star was placed at the same spot where the ammunition was stored. Later that is the spot where the liquid storage was used. Enemy troops would aim at these stars. Just like in the Polish campaign where Polish gunners laid their sights on the Balkan crosses on the side. The Germans repainted the crosses during the campaign in yellow that made it harder to see.
We will do a show on Belton Cooper's book one day, it had an interesting perspective, but skewed people's perception of tank warfare
Thanks
The reason for the Sherman getting such a bad rap for brewing up, was due the how the ammo was stored, and crews used to carry more ammo than they should have, and so once a Sherman gets penetrated it is more likely to brew up. This was fixed by changing to wet ammo stowage.
Which is what was said in the show
U.S. Army analysis from North Africa, Italy and Northern Europe in 1943-44 showed early model Shermans brewed up if penetrated 75% of the time, due not to fuel fires, but to the exposure of ammunition in the sponsons. Additional armor added over the ammunition racks did not mitigate the problem. The ultimate solution was removing ammunition from the sponsons and repositioning it under the turret floor, in individual metal cylinders surrounded by a water/glycerine mix. This was introduced in the M4A3(W) variant, the (W) standing for "Wet Stowage). Moving the ammunition below the turret basket improved survivability immensely--(W) variants caught fire only about 20% of the time, if penetrated, and then largely because Sherman crews had a tendency to pack extra main gun ammo into every nook and cranny of the fighting compartment. Eventually, the liquid surrounding the ammunition canisters was drained, because it was causing corrosion, and did not seem to add much to survivability beyond that attained by placing the ammunition under the floor.
Good comment. It confirms what I`m trying to point out.
My great Uncle burned in a Sherman, not sure if he was alive after the vehicle was hit, in the closing days of the war in Europe, 745th TB, attached to the Big Red 1. 5 tanks attacked, three burned when hit, and this info is from a Vet who was there, not a book or an opinion, I spoke to Elvin Phelps in late eighties, hoping to learn more about my Uncle. Elvin said there was nothing left of him to bury. T5 Albert Harding Harvey. You can find them both in the unit history. Harding is quickly found on page 2 "In Memoriam" pages of the 745th Unit History. Elvin told me he was one of only three that survived from the original training at Camp Bowie, Texas. Told me it was the best time of his life, and some things about my Great Uncle I didn't know. Elvin died Nov 6,1991 in my home town, Mt Vernon Il. He was 69 years old. Not a day goes by that I don't think about my Uncle trapped burning alive. I hope that he was killed instantly, but I will never know, this action took place near the Harz mountains in Germany. I see it like this, the Tankers who were lucky enough to not fight, survived, and those who did, took it on the nose hard...and their stories went untold, and all that remains is the newspaper clipping from my home town, notifying the town of his death "MT VERNON TANK SOLDIER KILLED IN GERMANY"
"All of the time" is an exaggeration, but the typical Sherman with dry ammo storage did brew up 60-80% of the time when penetrated. Of the over 50,000 Shermans produced, over 38,000 had the dry ammo storage and your chances of surviving a penetrating hit were poor. The dry ammo Sherman was explosive like a T-72, so there remains a lot of truth to the myth. In terms of survivability, the wet ammo Sherman was a dramatic improvement.
The question isn't if it burned, but if it burned particularly more or less than any of its contemporaries.
That brings up the related question: how likely is your tank to be penetrated? If your tank is easily penetrated, it is more likely to brew up than a tank that is difficult to penetrate, even if they brew up at the same rate once penetrated. By 1943, the Sherman was easily penetrated by the upgunned 75 Mark IV and Pak 75, let alone the Panther and Tiger.
@garyjones9023 Indeed, but then there are additional concerns such as time to acquire and lay, and even rate of fire. One 8.8 round fired may well set an M4 alight more often than not, but there have also been instances of M4s firing multiple rounds and setting Tigers alight before the 8.8 had a chance to do its job. Bottom line, it's not a simple comparison