The M4 Sherman Tank: Master of the Battlefield - Exploring Its Variants and Legacy
Join Hank Wilcox, the Associate Curator at the National Museum of Military Vehicles, as he delves into the fascinating history and variants of the M4 Sherman tank, one of the most iconic American tanks of World War II. This comprehensive video, set in the museum's Marshall Gallery, offers a unique insight into the Sherman tank's development, production, and role in shaping the outcome of the war.
TIMESTAMPS
00:00:00 - Introduction by Hank Wilcox, Associate Curator at the National Museum of Military Vehicles.
00:00:17 - Overview of the Marshall Gallery and the Rotunda of American Armored Vehicles.
00:00:41 - Discussion on the M4 Sherman tank and its comparison with the German Tiger I tank.
00:01:31 - The significance and production details of the M4 Sherman during World War II.
00:01:52 - Design and role of the M4 Sherman as a medium tank.
00:02:15 - Challenges faced by the M4 Sherman in terms of firepower and armor.
00:02:30 - The vast production of the M4 Sherman by various manufacturers.
00:03:19 - The M4 Sherman as the first tank purchased for the museum.
00:03:39 - Introduction to the different variants of the M4 Sherman.
00:04:20 - Presentation of the M4A3E8 Sherman, also known as the EZ-8 Sherman.
00:06:20 - The M4A3 E2 Sherman, known as the Jumbo, with enhanced armor.
00:07:15 - Features of the EZ-8 Sherman, including its track design and 76mm cannon.
00:08:18 - Introduction to the M4A3E9 Sherman with extended track width.
00:11:06 - Discussion on Sherman tanks equipped with flamethrowers used in the Pacific Front.
00:12:23 - Modifications on Sherman tanks for specific battlefield tactics in the Pacific.
00:14:11 - Conclusion on the diverse roles and effectiveness of the M4 Sherman in World War II.
00:15:11 - Closing remarks and invitation to visit the museum.
Correction: 00:01:47 - The first Sherman Tanks arrived in North Africa January 1942 and entered combat for the first time in May 1942 and not in 1941.
The third Sherman hull variant is the “Composite” hulled Sherman manufactured by Chrysler. The hull was two thirds fabricated/welded and the other third (front was cast. Approximately 1500 of these “Composite” hulled Shermans were made. All of them left the factory with the 75mm gun and some were converted by the British into the Firefly with the more powerful 17 pounder gun which could easily knock out Panthers and Tigers at longer ranges. I own and am currently restoring one of these .
I have to ask how you picked one up?
I bought the M4A1 6 or 7 years ago from Karl Smith in Tooele, Utah. Karl has passed away now, but he spent decades collecting the largest private collection of WWII military vehicles in the U.S.
@@DanStarks-em1vjthat’s pretty awesome! I have a towed 37mm and a deuce and a half but a Sherman would be amazing. I wish you the best of luck and skill restoring it. Have fun and I hope there is a kid who it gets passed down too who appreciates it.
@@nathanbattles3958 A deuce and a half is a great truck and fun to drive. Never fails to put a smile on your face face.
@@nathanbattles3958 Years of waiting/patience and meeting the right contacts.
My grandfather was a Sherman commander on Iwo Jima, and he served in a flamethrower tank for a time. He said the fuel was carried in the belly of the tank, which was very lightly armored. He told me he was very glad to get out of it. He also served in two standard Sherman gun tanks, a Sherman tankdozer, and an M4 battlefield modification known as a corpsman tank. The corpsman tank had a hinged armor plate mounted on the glacis, and the co-driver was replaced by a medic. The medic would find wounded men on the beach and the tank would drive up over them, straddling them with its tracks. Then the hinged plate was lowered in front to prevent the enemy from firing under the tank while the rescue was taking place. Then the wounded man was brought in through the belly hatch, the armor plate was raised, and the tank backed down the beach to a med station. He said he never saw any other corpsman tanks, so I can only assume they determined that the best way to protect the wounded was to use the tank in its normal role and drive the enemy back, away from the many casualties.
Flamethrower Sherman....a literal Ronson! 🔥
If you happen to know, how was the armored plate lowered without exposing the crew? I imagine this was a one-off modification but it sounds like a good idea for the situation.
@@YourRulerSkeletos it sounds to me similar to a dozer blade on the outside which would not expose the crew. Pretty clever solution...
@@YourRulerSkeletos Just a flap with a chain.
@@YourRulerSkeletos No, he never described that part of the operation, and for some reason, I never thought to ask him. I always thought the driver or co-driver used a log or something, which would expose them briefly. But can you imagine? You're wounded on the beach, you can't walk, and here comes a tank, straight at you?
Fair video. I see you've done some improvements since i was there. I appreciate the relaxed presentation style, you're obviously more comfortable in front of the camera than many. I shall keep an eye out to see what else comes along from your channel
Thank you for your comments Nicholas. Come back to visit anytime. Please let me know in advance when you come so I can host you properly. Dan Starks
The way he says M4A3E8 instead of M4A3 (76)W HVSS kinda triggers me. It's kinda like calling the M4A1, the T6. The reason why it aggravates me is 1. I'm Autistic and these things matter to me, 2. I used to incorrectly call it an M4A3E8. And 3. People then start calling the M4A1 (76)W HVSS and M4A2 (76)W HVSS, the M4A1E8, and M4A2E8, which were designations that were never put on a tank and were used only as place holders if the A1 or A2 were chosen for the E8 Program. I have a source for my claims if you want.
I thought it was a well put together and informative video. Still, it would have been nice to see how to tension the tracks, I've always wondered how that's done.
Great video and wonderful channel! When the Chieftain says check out a channel...well it's wise to follow any order Col Moran gives if you wish to keep your head 😂
@@pepperman2385 I'm sure that Irish guy (Nicholas Moran) must have done an M4 at least once.
To be fair every country produced the "Best" tank for their country. The US had to have something reliable that was relatively light and be easily repairable because it was being shipped 12,000 miles away and repairs facilities could be iffy. The Russians just needed something with armor a gun and able to drive to the other side of the factory where the fighting sometimes was. The Germans had a shortage of both men and material and elected to make the best tank they could relying on quality because they could never compete with quantity. The Brits... they produced a lot of different tanks. They got the Chieftain at the end. There's that.
Tiger is the tank that can win a battle. Sherman is the tank that can win a war. What a great museum tour! Love your presentation. Very informative. Look forward to visiting the museum in the future.
Pure cope, the US army could have fought with Stuarts and still end up winning, this is a testament to the manufacturing capability of a nation/alliance not the capability of a vehicle as such. When mass production capability between opposing sides isnt so one sided, we see better tanks ( fighter jets etc.) butchering inferior equivalents. The Americans charged 73 easting with Abrams Tanks not "more easy to produce M60s" nd butchered "cheap, mass produced T-72s"
@@DD-qw4fzthose t72s were export models with untrained crews who didn’t even want to be there
Germans said their tanks were worth 10 American tanks but the Americans always had 11
@@melbea03 yeah, but the crews of those ten tanks never came home. You point to the central reason the Sherman was successful. But at a sacrifice of thousands of good men
@@01swainco I point out nothing , I quoted what the Germans said nothing more
"A Jack of all trades is a master of none, but often times better than master of one" The production and variations of the M4 Sherman line of vehicles proves this statement true. A lot of critics of the M4 seem to under appreciate that these vehicles needed to be shipped to all theaters across the globe. Not so easy to do with heavily armored tanks like the king tigers and Russian heavy KV-1
The king tiger didnt need to be shipped to all theaters. And it is in fact better than the sherman in almost every aspect save for probably mpg and top speed.
The point you make is valid, to everyone except those who perished and never came home. War is a terrible thing. Russian tankers in junk equipment in Ukraine are finding the same thing by the thousands.
@@jonnyblayze5149The Tiger tanks also broke down a lot and they were a real pain in the butt to service and/or repair. A transaxle swap on a Tiger would take about 12-16 hours, whereas a transaxle swap in a Sherman could be done in 4-6 hours.
@@michaelmurray7199 thats great (false, but great). Now what does that have to do with what I said?
@@jonnyblayze5149 Because you said that the Tiger was “better than the Sherman in almost every aspect”.
The Sherman's reputation has been on my mind for years. As mentioned in this vid the first impression I got was that the Shermans were derisively called and deserving of the name Ronsons because so many of them went up in flames. They seemed too light and puny compared to both the German and Russian tanks. Then I read stories about how the German Panzers and Tigers were prone to break downs and that they did not lend themselves to repairs in the field whereas the Sherman was less likely to break down and more easily repaired with plenty of parts available. German tanks were sometimes too wide for roads, prone to getting stuck or too heavy for rural bridges; something that hobbled Joachim Peiper in the Battle of the Bulge whereas the Yank tank was well suited to these limitations in the environment. The German tanks were especially thirsty and Germany was especially short of fuel whereas the Americans' logisitcs were unmatched. My general feeling is that the Germans were hell bent on building a tank that in a toe to toe slugfest would trounce any other but that they did not think wholistically about the various battlefield environments. The Russian T34; well even Hitler said to the Finns that he had no idea the Ruskies could build so many of something good enough to carry the day at Kursk, for example. I wish I knew something about how the Sherman would have done in a fight with that tank and what were its strengths and weaknesses.
Might be worth researching the Korean War with Sherman & T-34 tanks. I think from my understanding of those engagements/anatomy of the tanks is that they both could knock each other out reliably. The 76 and 85 were pretty effective on both their armor, especially the hulls of both. The Sherman had a gyroscope, better optics, and for lack of a better term, “ergonomics” for the crew (i.e. space, and hatches). The Sherman had a higher silhouette because of this however. Both are comparable, but the Sherman might have an edge in getting the shot off first and getting the kill. But Im not really a historian so take this with a grain of salt. Another thing to consider is the Sherman probably had a 50 cal on the top for AA defense. Im not entirely sure the T-34/85 had a 12.7mm on the turret in any meaningful numbers.
The erganomics of the tank allowed most of the crew(s) to escape before the tank "brewed" up! Damaged and destroyed Shermans do not match tank crew causalties! The crews often survived!
@@BaconBeast11 The M4A2 with 76mm gun actually performed "Exceptionally well" against the T34/85s it had to face in Korea for most of the reasons you listed. in most tank on tank engagements the Sherman was adequate enough to repel the T34s even when outnumbered, and these T34/85 were the ones that got refit and had higher quality of manufacture than during WW2 because the Soviets were not in mad desperation to cut corners to build the things anymore.
A tsunami of tanks produced, then shipped across an ocean is a logistical marvel. The fact is that its reliability and battlefield prowess are almost without equal in the war. Most WW2 geeks focus on the tank v tank engagements, but for engaging enemy infantry, taking out prepared defensive positions and providing suppressing fire the Sherman was an excellent machine.
Until it ran into a heavy artillery piece, or a German panzerfaust bazooka. It definitely had areas where it excelled, and places were it's weaknesses were exposed and tank and crew destroyed The casualties the Russian tank crews are suffering are absolutely horrible. Seeing plumes of fire blasting out of hatches, turrets blown 20 meters into the air....
@@01swainco There is not an invulnerable tank in the world! Any of their armor could be penatrated and destroyed! The M4 was a capable and respected tank! Armchair warriors to the contrary!
@@mahbriggs I am not an armchair anything just a old guy who heard the Sherman was a death trap with weak armor and crap low velocity gun. It's been reported many times a high velocity German gun could shot in and out the other side of the Sherman. The gasoline motor made violent explosions upon contact with German guns an instant total kill. They no doubt made improvements but thousands of good men died in Sherman tanks I think it was rushed out, there were so many necessary things to build and even supposedly General Patton got involved and chose a lite tank. As long as the tank crews didn't encounter Panzer tanks it was fine.
@@01swainco Since you aknowlege that you are simply relying on rumor, I suggest you look up facts and statistics! I don't blame you for repeating rumor, but the facts tend out weigh rumor.
@@mahbriggs ok, so the Sherman had fantastic armor, a high velocity main gun, it didn't use an airplane radial engine and didn't have explosive gasoline storage, the loader didn't have to keep the main gun ammo in a box soaking in radiator coolant so the ammo wouldn't cook off when the tank armor was penetrated. You happy now?
Great to see more museums bringing their collections to the world through KZhead!
Beautiful collection. Very important point you made: Jack of all trades-master of none. Sherman was easy to maintain and repair IN THE FIELD! Most other nations relied on depots or the original factory to repair or provide major overhaul. Sherman was still used by Israel, to great effect, in the 1970’s.
good optics and a solid radio are the unsung heroes of tank design, still stands today that the tank who sees/shoots first typically wins. I am sure those Israeli M4s had some good optics and radios put in giving the old dog some advantages though that 105mm gun slinging HEAT was a huge help. Pretty sure if you tried hard enough to upgrade an M4 you could get lucky engaging some mid cold war era tanks at the very least just figure out a way to put in some Thermal imagers and use something like that 105mm the Israelis were using along with a stabilizer and ballistic computer and you would have a deadly if severely under armored tank still.
O.K. I will agree with that. But, a hell of a lot of Americans died (burned alive) in the "Jack of all trades".
@@gathasofpersia6432 you know that the tank with the highest crew survival rate during the war was the Sherman right? where most tanks you had between a 50% and 80% chance of dying when the vehicle was struck the Sherman you had roughly a 17% chance of death when the armor was penetrated. truth is that the bad reputation is just classic survivors bias because the only ones who survived to complain about their tanks actually effected the reputation of their tanks. wet ammo storage, spring loaded hatches and a spacious interior allowed the crew to have ample time to escape the tanks when they got penetrated by a shell and those tanks typically burned out well after the crew already got out.
@@gathasofpersia6432 Sherman wasn’t too different than most other tanks. It was standard doctrine for all countries to hit a tank until it caught fire. A burnt out tank was a total loss and could not be returned to service. Sherman featured spring loaded hatches which sped up escape from a burning tank. Wet stowage of ammo significantly cut the risk of ammo fires which led to catastrophic loss of the vehicle. The T-34 series was cramped, uncomfortable and bailing from a burning vehicle was much more difficult
Slight Correction. The M4A3E8 designation only refers to the testbeds for the E8 program. After the tests were successful, the Official production designation became M4A3 (76)W HVSS.
Very good concise comprehensive report. 🤠👍👍The problem wasn't the loss of tanks, it was the loss of crew. They had a lot of survivors, true, but they had a lot of not.
I have seen interviews with tank veterans from the Pacific theater. According to them, the spikes on top were also used to protect from explosives. By raising explosives just a few inches above the hull, it would disperse the blast enough to prevent a hull breach.
I absolutely need to try and get out that way one day to see this place!
Feel for the Sherman...often underrated and on the end of Harsh criticism...The Sherman evolved and evolved well!
Funny thing is that every piece of US equipment that has ever been used has been the subject of harsh criticism and awful/rarely true rumors and hearsay. The M1 Carbine was called weak/underpowered and people acted like the .30 carbine was not a lethal cartridge despite having a muzzle energy of 967 foot-pounds which is about 70% the power of the 5.56 we use today. The M16 was called a POS despite the only ones having issue being the very first production versions and even then they usually had issues because the troops didn't know how to take care of the rifle properly. this rifle was also called underpowered but people seem to have stopped calling 5.56 weak sometime in the 90s. The F4 phantom was considered a bad jet when it first came out as it didn't have a gun and everyone thought that it was un-maneuverable and that it was no match for the Mig-21 which when the two actually fought it dominated the Mig-21s. heck look at the Bradley which had a movie and book written just to crap all over it and some people still believe its bad despite how it has time and time again proven to be an amazing IFV and showed great prowess fighting T55 and T72 tanks in desert storm. The F35 was called expensive (Despite costing less than the F15-EX) and there was a massive amount of hit-piece articles written about it with dubious sources and siting "independent" organizations that claimed to detect it using passive radar but their definition of "Detection" was that they knew exactly when and where it would fly ahead of time and they identified the aircraft by matching its pre determined flightpath with a single dot among a swarm of interference because you need to set the radars sensitivity that it picks up songbirds and insects like they are jets.
Also remember how do you move the tanks from the factory floor to the front lines? Railroad cars of that time were weight restricted. While those tanks are moving by rail. The Liberty ships are awaiting their arrival at various ports across the world. Then reloaded onto LST's for landings. The logistical effort was incredible to get these vehicles to the soldiers on the ground.
No they werent limited by wieght but by the width of the tiger. The tracks had to be changed out to be loaded then changed again after offloading
@@jonnyblayze5149 I don't think he was talking about the Tiger since he mentioned the Liberty ships he was definitely talking about the Sherman like in the video.
@@dominuslogik484 comprehension kid, comprehension. He said they were weight restricted. If the tiger can be moved by rail it would be no problem moving the sherman by rail if going by wieght.🙄
@@dominuslogik484 also where in europe did shermans en mass have "landings" using LST's besides maybe, MAYBE d-day🤨
@@dominuslogik484 do- "MINUSLOGIK"-484. hmmm🤔sort if explains it😂😁🤭👉
Also of note is the fact that the vast majority of the armor the M-4 ran up against were MK IV and Stug (up gunned tank destroyer versions of the MK III) which the Sherman was more than a match or equal to! Although encounters with Tiger and Panther did occur, more often than not they would encounter the MK IV and hold their own!
Also don’t forget when dozens of Panthers were engaged by standard 75mm Shermans who used superior tactics and positioning to flank them and close to ranges where the 75mm shells could easily get through the side armor
@@nixphxit was just numbers. The bountiful numbers of units is what made the sherman successful. Which im fine with. A win is a win.
I have always found the history of American armor in WW2 very interesting. Even the tanks that never got out of prototype stage.. and why no heavy tank was put into production while many were tested. And Sherman variants are wonderful to explore. Good stuff. Thanks for the video!
Wasn’t it something to do with shipping difficulties, first to England and then on to Europe, and limited dock facilities to lift off heavier tanks?
The M-6 Heavy Tank was a failure due to weight and Transmission issues. There are a couple of good books on this subject. But in will refree you the the Chieftain's video on the, M-26 Pershing tank development which covers this in a highly entertaining and thorough manner.
@@fanfeck2844 Yes that's it. I forgot. Shipping issues. The weight limit of available cranes at docks. The US has to ship equipment to Europe and Asia/Pacific whereas other combatants didn't.
@@dennisswaim8210 Thanks, I will look up on the Chieftain's channel!
If you wanna get technical, when the M 26 was introduced it was technically classified as a heavy tank. Yes it was reclassified later.. point still remains that yes, the US did in fact field a heavy tank during WW2.
One version missed out (Maybe because it was not a factory version) , the British version (Used by many Commonwealth forces and forces in exile), the Firefly
My father was the second driver/machine gunner in a Sherman tank in the 3rd Army, under General Patton, 4th Armored Division, 37th Tank Battalion, under Colonel Creighton Abrams, and in Company C--they were the spearhead that penetrated the Ardennes Offensive. He is no longer with us, but I am oh so proud of that man. A true warrior.
Awesome. Thank you for sharing.
🙄👌
Nice presentation. Hopefully someday I can visit your museum. Nice collection. As the Chieftain says the, M-4 may not have been the best tank on a given battlefield but it was the best tank for the US, cause it could and did operate on all battlefields in huge numbers.
Not the best in any combat “metric” but had excellent crew survival rate and was generally reliable. Perfect for the US because they were not too large to ship overseas in quantity which allowed the US to flex their true advantage: manufacturing and logistical superiority
@@l4x3rj that's all great but being "disposible" and easy to transport doesn't help the guys in them fighting the enemy. War by attrition works great to the commanders, not so much for the soldiers.
@@muskokamike127 It doesn't do the troops in the field any good if their slightly better tank is outnumbered 2 or 3 to one! As the Germans found out!
@@mahbriggs If the tiger was built to be easily fixed and reliable, things would have been a lot different. Know why? Those 3 tanks couldn't kill it. Put it another way: if I had a mini gun and was facing off against 100 soldiers armed with M1's, who do you think would survive?
@@muskokamike127 Not you. While many of the soldiers with the M1s may die they only need to get luckily once. Plus 100 soldiers can make a lot of opportunities to get lucky since they can engage in tactics. Also what the hell makes you think 3 Shermans couldn't kill a Tiger? If you're referring to the myth that it took 4 Shermans to kill a Tiger it also took 4 Shermans to kill lone infantrymen since 4 was the minimum number sent to do anything. 1 Sherman Firefly or one armed with the 76mm could easily kill a Tiger, not that the 75 can't do the job at close range or from the flank. Not to mention that most of the time who wins a tank battle has nothing to do with the stats of the tank but who lands the first shot and 4 Shermans have a lot of chances of landing a first shot.
I came upon this place on a trip out west. The museum is incredible. It is in the middle of no where but if you get a chance, go see it. Plan for a whole day.
Fantastic episode! Keep this type of format, it's great.
Never heard of this place, It is marked on my 2024 bucket list. Great video!
Great video and a fantastic collection, thanks.
You deserve way more views and likes just for introducing the Sherman variants that fought alongside the USMC in the Pacific. This made it the best video on the Sherman, bar none.
Outstanding collection!! 👌
Careful! Don't shout too loud about the "poor" frontal armor of the Sherman within shouting distance of 'The Chieftain'. Granted, the armor was not fool proof. The missing leg of a neighbor when growing up was testament to what a German 8.8 cm could do. Still, those front plates were SERIOUSLY sloped, providing decent protection from German 7.5 cm weapons.
The German armour steel plates by 1942 lack Manganese and Valiandum alloys a key strengthen in armour plates which bide the Steel protect against brittling or spalling deadly fragmentation steels which killed or wounded crews.
It had the thickest effective armor protection of any medium bar the Panther, which wasn't really even a medium tank (it was about the same weight as the IS-2). The problem was obviously that the Germans were deploying far more powerful anti-tank guns than the allies were.
@Chopstorm. The earlier M4s suffered with protruding driver hatches and the corner notch on the cast hulls. Sherman was still well equipped through the war I'd argue. Great survivability through easy use hatches and room for movement.
@@bjornsmith9431. Anyone who can invent their own element is worthy of being listened to.
@@Chopstorm.so the tank wasn’t under armoured it’s just the Germans were over gunned…….
This was an amazing video! Please keep it up and you will get so much growth on the channel!
I've been to your museum twice and I hope I can visit again soon. Thanks for the great museum and video.
Thank you for the information Hank, I’ll visit the museum soon!
We visited the museum in 21’. What an amazing place!! I loved the Revolutionary War musket and the story behind it. Well done and Merry Christmas 🎄🎁
My parents owned the ranch in the 50's &60's that the museum is built on. I was there in '21 as well and was impressed .Parents ashes were scattered on the mesa/bench to the north
Excellent video presenting the different variations of the M4, as it adopted to the War as it progressed.
Love the armor plate on the cheek (of the turret) of this lead Sherman tank (in this video) with the 3 piece transmission cover. Thanks for discussing this. Love the American M4 Sherman.
GREAT video, loved the info on the m4a3r5
Love this! Keep it up! This museum is fantastic, and I can't wait to go back.
Very well done and super interesting! Thanks for sharing, would love to visit the museum one day!
What a fine presentation! Thank you!
Great video, thank you for sharing 😀
Thanks for that, good US perspective, especially liked the discussion of the variants. The Tank Museum in the UK very recently put out a You Tube video on the Sherman (which has the Fury tank and one of the very first ones Michael), so watched together you can get a really good insight into the tank's origins, versions (including different engines) and its use.
60+ years ago, one of the Dads brought some movies for us to watch at a Boy Scout Meeting. He had been a combat camera man in the Pacific during WWII. One film showed an M4 wadding up to a big cave. Suddenly it shot a stream of flames into the cave. Flaming enemy soldiers came rushing out. I don't remember anymore. Good Luck, Rick
I’m in the UK and just wanted to say what a brilliant museum and a fantastic presentation, thanks.
Please visit us when you can.
That is so cool
Thank you for setting us right on just how capable the Sherman line of ranks actually were to our success in both the pacific and European and African theaters . I have a new respect for this weapon system .
Thank You for your reporting on the tank
great presentation
I'm an American, and I really like your Sherman collection. Maybe you should mention the Funnies done by the Britts to the Sherman Tank? There was also an optional Bulldozer Blade added to some Sherman's, and the Calliope Rocket launcher, and on and on. The Sherman chassis was used for several Tank Destroyers (TD's) and the M7 Priest with it's 105mm Howitzer Canon with an open fighting compartment like the TD's. Yes, the Sherman was used for many tasks during WW-II and into the Korean War, and Israel also up gunned them and used them for a long time.
M4 was being designed at the same time as the M3 Grant/Lee - M3 was always a stopgap. M4's chassis, was also the basis for TDs and Mobile Artillery and specialist vehicles. The DDs being particularly impactful. Odd that you fail to mention the importance of keeping sherman's weight down with respect to transport - the US and UK had to ship their tanks worldwide - Germany and the USSR could drive and rail theirs to almost anywhere they fought.
The Preist Howizter also had the Sherman chasis,body.
Same with Soviet tanks - they all had to be under 50 tons, even the heavy tanks, so that all tanks could move across bridges.
@@drondronov13 50 tons for WW2 was considered extremely heavy. Germany exceeded it a couple of times with the Tiger series but the standard weight for a tank was in-between 20-38 tons with the Sherman actually being on the heavy side for a medium tank ranging between 30-38 tons depending on variant. its actually funny how the King tiger which is still considered monstrously heavy weighs a little less than an Abrams and a good bit less than the Challenger 2's most modern iterations.
@@refealibazeta7886 The Priest is an under rated piece of equipment from WW2 I feel. though the original M7 Priests were based on the M3 they would later start using Sherman chassis as the Sherman and the M3 were extremely similar tanks. having a 105mm howitzer on a relatively fast and decently armored chassis (for the time 15Mph off road and 24Mph on road) along with 69 shells when loaded to normal capacity meant that you had artillery right where you needed it and it could follow the front lines even if the advance was rather rapid. I wouldn't be surprised if M7 crews figured out how to squirrel away a dozen or so extra shells onto the thing to really limit how often they needed to rely on logistics to resupply them.
@@dominuslogik484 Correct. IS1, IS2 and IS3 heavy tanks were around 45 tons, just like Panthers medium tanks. Same height too. Half of Abrams' weight is that giant 1500 hp turbine engine and fuel (probably).
Also to note is the ease of repair and parts replacement. They were VERY universal in their makeup as far as the parts were concerned. Germany on the other hand had very complicated mechanics and the different tanks had little to no ability to swap parts. They were simple to work on, simple to refit and retrofit and shared parts.
That was their downfall but on the other hand, if they were more reliable, they wouldn't need to be replaced at the same rate as shermans because of their kill ratio. An important note barely mentioned in the above video: 76 mm could take out a tiger 1....from the side or rear. Well, tank battles are fought face to face.....I watched a video based on tank commander experience: A hidden tiger will see a line of 4 or 5 shermans on the road in front of it. It will fire, disabling the first one with a side shot. It'll reload and disable the last one. The middle 2/3 will turn to face the tiger. The tiger will take out the left, as they split up. Then it'll take out the right, all head on shots. Then it will be a race to see who can turn the fastest as the remaining sherman tries to get behind the tiger. In Normandy, the kill ratio was 95 to 115 shermans to 14 - 18 shermans. That's all you need to know.
The extremely high quality that was designed into the German Tanks were their downfall. First, they were not built on assembly lines. Much of their construction was by hand, thus their tolerances were extremely tight. Therefore they could not be repaired in a frontline repair depot, they had to be sent back to German Factories for repair work. On the American M-4 tanks, as long as the tolerances were “within acceptable range” that was good enough. Virtually all of our vehicles were repaired and even upgraded at frontline repair depots. Second, most of the workers in German Factories were slave labor by the end of 1943. Recruited at gun point along with the rest of their village, knowing that their wives and daughters were being gang-raped, the slaves fought back the only way they could - sabotage. Thy crimped fuel lines, jammed cigarette butts into hydraulic lines, anything they could think of. British and American Factories used Patriotic Citizens to build their weapons.
@@williampaz2092 while all that was true, to make the M4 a better machine, they didn't need to make it heavier, or more complex, just use common sense. 1) angled armor on the sides. Instead of "fenders" over the tracks if they simply angled the side plates 15 deg it would increase the armor thickness by 10% without adding any weight. 2) why did it take the british to install a main gun that could actually penetrate the tiger? I mean they eventually got around to it but seriously. 3) "but they rarely met a tiger on the battlefield" but they DID meet the 88 and other anti tank guns. 4) I mean, they admitted they needed more armor by deploying the "jumbo". One of the things you have to understand, at the time, (and even in some respects today) the american mindset is: cheap and quick and disposable, "we've got lots of material, why make them better when we can make a lot of them"?
@@muskokamike127The flat unsloped armor of the tiger could easily be penetrated by a 76mm at normal combat ranges and at even greater ranges utilizing HVAP ammunition. Clearly you didn’t do enough research into the capability of the 76mm gun
@@nixphx I'm going to disagree, every reference to sherman's vs tigers said the 76 mm had trouble penetrating the frontal armor of a tiger.....every.single.one. So I'll take those over YOUR post, tyvm.
There were Shermans that fought in Normandy and got to enter Germany. Can't say that about too many Tigers! But one thing you could add is the absolute mastery of logistics displayed by the United States in WW2. The only nation that successfully fought the war in two hemispheres while supplying all their allies at the same time. Considering that Liberty ships were designed to take a certain amount of M4's or CCKW's or Jeeps etc..is just simple but essential ingenuity that was pivotal to winning the war. You can have the best soldiers and best weapons in the world, but if you can't get them to where they need to be along with all the fuel, ammo and every other supply, then what good is that weapon? So building 50,000 Shermans ( more tanks than all the British and German tanks built during WW2 COMBINED!) And that's just the Sherman! And then putting them where they needed to be whether it was Kasserine, Utah Beach, Bastogne, Saipan or Okinawa. That's another massive factor as well.
Great video ! Congratulation from Brazil !
Very good first Video. Looks like a Museum I need to put on my list :)
I love your museum it is the best.
Interesting video thanks. Subscribed and greetings from Scotland.
The very BEST Sherman for the Normandy breakout was the M4A4C - Firefly. Why? it was the only tank available o take on the German big cats, as the 76mm was left at home. By the time the Easy 8 showed up, the legend of Firefly had already been born.
Wow! Great video! Also worth mentioning is Fort Hood, TX, namely one the main armor unit posts for the us army. Drive around Fort Hood, and it's wall to wall museum with tanks/armored vehicles of past eras. Plenty of outdoor static displays, regarding ww2 might!
Great video, please reward us with more videos of vehicles that you have at the museum.
Hank excellent presentation, compliments on your speaking ability, over all well done. I live in western MT, so a rode trip shall be planned.
Cool video, didnt realise there were so many variants of the sherman
Great presentation. Big up the Sherman.
This looks like my World of Tanks garage! All my favorite tanks!
Dear Mr. Hank Wilcox, I thoroughly enjoyed your presentation on the M4 Sherman tank. I would like to inform you of one correction. Having lived in Lima, Ohio for many years, I am aware of the proper pronunciation of Lima. It is Lima as in the BEAN and not the city in Peru. The Joint Systems Manufacturing Center - Lima (JSMC) continues to be the major tank production facility in the United States, currently manufacturing and updating the Abrams tank. Keep up the good work.
i also corrected him, and told him how testy limians get when you pronounce it "lee muh".
You guys beat me to it! Born and raised in Lorain County. Was taught of the contributions of Lima Tank at an early age.
To this day, I hate lima beans😂
Go touch grass nerds
@@thurin84 Having been to Valdez(e), Alaska an Hurica(i)n, Utah, i can attest to regional misspronounciation of names, and the locals umbrage at hearing it correctly pronounced!
Really impressed with your knowledge and speaking ability really well done👍
Nice job
I have just heard of your museum, and i am kind of kicking myself for not seeing it the last two times I was in tge area! In fact I drove through Dubois and didn't stop, because I didn't realise what was there! My bad.😔 Rest assured, the nest time I am in the region, I will visit! From what I have seen online, it is well worth effort! Hopefully this summer, the next at the latest!
Very nice video! Much appreciated! I think the Pacific theatre Shermans are the least studied ones. The wooden applique "armour" on the sides is an interesting one. I'd love to hear more about that in the future. The M4A2 with the diesel engine also had wading stacks mounted in certain operations. Have any of these been preserved and how useful were they in operation? Thank you! BTW, I got here from the Chieftain's video so kudos there!
The best part of the Sherman tanks that made it a war winner was it's tank crews When your out gun and out armored by your enemy. You have to be alert at all times and out wit them
it also helped that Sherman crews were not shy about firing at an enemy with as much ammo as it took to get a kill, while the Germans were running short on supply of everything the US was making more stuff than it could ever possibly use on its own. a panther might survive a shot or two but if you pound that tank with a dozen shells the plate is gonna crack from material fatigue.
Yad La Shiryon in Israel , has many variants of the Sherman tank on display , which goes to show how versatile , this "platform " really was - the IDF upgrading the Sherman all the way up to the M50/51 Super Sherman , which was used ( by Israel ) up to the early 1980's
I agree that the M4 sherman was a great concept. It was easy to produce and a sophisticated product throughout. Yet in my view it was more of a concept for the industry than for combat itself. The earlier versions and the standard 75mm gun were not sufficient against our tanks on its own. Only later generations were good enough to counter them. Then you also had the issues with the ammunition rack and with the engine. On the other hand, comparing the progress, the Sherman made in 4 years, and the progress, the Panzer 4 made in 10 years, you can clearly see the Sherman's greater flexibility. You can see how much easier it was to develop. You can see how the Americans fixed their problems, how the british could quite easily employ their own 76 mm anti tank gun. Then you can compare how few adaptions were necessary to the American industry with the necessary development of the German industry just to keep the production up. The United States did not need a Nibelungenwerk. The railroad industry could do the job in building the tanks as well. In the end, the Sherman in my view was not "better" nor "the best", yet it was ideal for the state of the American industry and for its allies.
Even with the Sherman's mobility - it's down to sheer luck you don't run into a mounted Kwk 88, concealed Flak 36 or some sixteen year old kid in a hedge with a Panzerfaust at point blank range and it's goodnight forever. And if by chance you do make it through the war your nerves are shredded as well as your eardrums. But tankers at least had the fortune of an exit they might make it out of before being burned alive. Those submariners on the other hand ....
People can argue all they want about who had the best tanks but the war was actually won by the side that had all of the bulldozers.
The Chieftain sent me - Looking forward to more videos.
Ironically, the Lima Locomotive cast hull for the earliest Shermans first appeared on the Canadian Ram tank , which also copied the chassis, engine, and suspension of the M3 Lee. It was produced by the Montreal Locomotive Works. The later Sherman hull included modifications to the front, and an enlarged turret ring to accommodate the 75mm gun which was superior to the 6 pounder that the Canadians had designed the Ram for. With some further modifications, once the Sherman design was settled upon, the Montreal Locomotive works produced cast hulls and manufactured nearly a thousand Sherman tanks which they named “Grizzlies”, until the Detroit Tank Arsenal got up to speed and made the Canadian production superfluous to needs. The massive casting facilities at locomotive shops were the only ones capable of casting something as large as a Sherman hull at that time, and performed an invaluable service when they were needed.
Slow down. But great talk. Thank you. Point about power of manufacturing very true..
There were other flamethrower Sherman tanks at Peleliu. There is a photo of one at work.
The chieftain gave you guys a shoutout and so here I am just now subscribed.
Thank you.
Oh no I could never forget it exists. It was the first model of Sherman that I drove 25 years ago and the first model of Sherman that I restored. The 76 never quite got to have same range killing power of the 17 pounder but was better than the standard Sherman 75mm.
Excellent presentation very informative.do you have the battle records of those specific tanks on your web
We have anecdotal battle records for one of our M18 Hellcats in the form of an oral history from the WWII veteran who commanded that exact vehicle in the Battle of the Bulge. With this kind of rare exception, we do nit have the history of specific vehicles.
Hybrid hulled Sherman’s were designated as M4s (75mm gun only) The British system of identification was Sherman Firefly 1C Hybrid. Mine is the slightly later manufactured Hybrid hull with the larger front hatches and upon arrival in the UK in late 1943 was then converted to Firefly specification. Chrysler produced approximately 1500 Hybrid hulled M4 Shermans. Some went the Pacific theatre and used by the Marine Corps and some went to Europe and were used by British and US forces.
I remember some many times watching tanks of different types over the years being hauled on Rail Cars to be scraped. I wished I could have bought and restored one of them. I would love to own a Tank of any type..
This looks like a great museum. I would love to visit sometime. Great looking exhibits. The presentation looked professional but, I noticed several instances where improper terms were used when referring to the vehicles or their components. Might help to have a technical consultant with some military experience review the scripts for future videos.
It was a game of numbers.
The M3 was designed AFTER the M4 as a stopgap to fill the gap until the M4 came online
Castings of the Sherman were made at GSI General Steel Industries. Granite City, IL. It was then fitted out in Canada.
Correct!😉👉
If you look at the raw casualty figures of American tank crewman in the Pacific North Africa ,Sicily, Italy ,France and Northern /Central Germany. A total of 1400 killed in action. Those are pretty good figures considering the vastness of the distribution of the Sherman tank, and you asked the question was the Sherman the best time of world war 2?, it was the best for the American forces, like the t34 was the best for the Russian The Churchill was the best for the British Canadian army an arguably the mark-4 was probably the best for the German as far as dependability and adaptability to other roles and upgrades still maintaining the original Maybach motor. If there had not been so much political wrangling and backbiting, the US M- 26 would have probably been the premier tank of war,only if they were available june 6 1944... Show me one other tank other than the M-3 M-4 tank that was used in ever theater of world war 2?? And yes the M3 was used in northern Europe it was set up as a canal defense light, the British liked it because it retained the 75 mm cannon that gave it a measure of self defense. The US used it at the Ramadan bridge crossing they called it the shop tractor.. in general Montgomery used it with his crossing of the Rhine River to sweep the river for mine n frogman swimming down to attach explosives to the bridge,s, the one item on all of the Sherman tanks shows that it was the best tank of world war 2, those four lifting rings located at each corner of the hull. That show that this tank was developed with a proper logistic train behind it and was transportable to any battlefront in the world.
Good vid. Imo the 76mm Sherman was the best ww2 tank, all things considered. Reliable. Wet ammo stowage. Excellent gun and and a turret that allowed the crew to squeeze maximum utility out of the tank. High rate of fire. Good ergos. Transportable. Quick to manufacture. Easy to repair. The list goes on.
Huge shoutout to the M3 Grant, I mean it's a stopgap medium tank for the early to late 1942 Allied tanks, before Sherman tanks arrived in large numbers
The M3 was always an interim compromise, combining the running gear and turret of the M2 with the 75mm gun needed to deal with a Panzer IV and armor able to defeat the 32mm antitank guns. The German use of 88mm anti aircraft guns in direct fire mode was their response.
Really enjoyable vlog. It wasn’t till the brits put a 17 pounder in the firefly that the M4 became truly formidable.
No? The American 76mm gun was also plenty capable of dealing with German armor
@@shirghazaycowboysthe 17 pounder is more powerful than the American gun and was fitted in time for D Day which was much needed in taking on the large German armoured forces in Normandy.
The M4 was always formidable. The 17 pounder just made it deadly
I feel the armor and gun are unfairly put down on at least in any context before normandy, the front plate was thin-ish but at its relatively high angle it was increased to be effectively 3 inches or more, and the only thing the sherman couldnt kill at range before they met panthers, was the tiger 1, it could kill every german light tank, the pz 3, pz 4, and pz38t, plus most not all anti tank guns were 75mm and up, allot of them were 50mm and 37mm, which the sherman could easily deflect, i think the sherman gets the short end of the history stick
Agreed, but most tanks were not killed by hits to the frontal armor. In fact, most were killed by hits to the side or rear!
The spikes also keep fecking seagulls off. Lol😂😂😂
I agree with what you say it wasn’t the best at almost anything but it was good at everything
I'm not sure the crew could always walk away from a direct hit and pick up a new tank. There are numerous accounts where recovery crews opened the bottom hatch and flushed out the remains of the combat crew with a hose.
Agreed. This is a great video, presentation and explaination of all the different Sherman variants. However. Most crews didn’t just pick up a new tank and keep on fighting. Most of the time they were either killed or wounded in that process. Overall this is a great video. Just had a little concern about that one statement. Reference the book “Death Traps” among others.
While I am sure it hapened, there are many documented cases of tge crew successfully abandoming the vehicle! In fact statistics show it's survivability rate to be equal or superior to most other tanks!
I've read "Death Traps." The author was the battalion maintenance liaison officer. It was his job to report back on how many replacement tanks they needed. So he mainly only saw the knocked-out ones. It colored his view of things. The book has been debunked by just about everyone. The best part of it is after the war, when he describes at length how the French women on the Riviera would carefully select the color of their swimsuits so as to appear nude when getting out of the water.
@@scottsharp3789 That book written 50 plus years after the war by Belton Cooper is a decent memoir, but a very bad history book. He included so many inaccuracies about the M4. Real historians have totally debunked a lot of what he wrote.
The Fury Sherman is in Bovington Tank Museum in England
The major shortcomings with Shermans and armor or gun power were in Europe, or Africa vs. the 88, or long barreled 75s, and Panthers, Tigers, and TDs. However, they were excellent in the Pacific, where the Japanese had only light tanks and 47mm AT guns.
I knew a veteran who served with Patton in the Third Armored, he said that so long as they had artillery and aircover working for them, and the German were unorganized, they had an advantage, but without artillery and air, and should the German had his stuff together, the Sherman tankers were dead ducks. The Germans chewed them up like ripe fruit. That's from a guy that had tanks shot out from under him.
The welded hulls were slightly stronger than the cast hulls also! The extra armor on the sides was of little use and was more often used by anti tank crews as an aiming point!
Why was the welded hulls stronger than the cast hulls? Just curious.
@@user-uy1rg8td1v I don’t have all the answers, but it’s partly due to better consistency in rolled armor vs cast, and face hardening, which can only be done to plate steel. Castings vary quite a bit and in some cases you might get a cast hull that’s better than a welded one. I d recommend further research if you want to know more than that. I’ll be doing the same.
@@user-uy1rg8td1vbecause the plates could "withstand" (if you will) the shell impact but the rivets could not withstand the hits better than the wielded ones as for the casted ones it takes more metal to get the same strength of weilded ones so it takes more weight to get the same protection putting stress on driveline and transmission.
Did they add the extra tracks and road wheel onto the flamer thrower sherman for extra armor? Or just stowage?
Armor wasn’t as big a problem in the Pacific as it was in Europe. The wooden sides are to stop limpet mine attachments or satchel charges I don’t remember which. Maybe both.
Can you do a video on the Sherman's with the 105s?
I wouldn’t say it was they master of the battlefield but it was a good tank
One of the few tanks to see combat on all fronts. Even being used in the assault on Berlin.