Light tanks were a crucial weapon system during World War II, with their appearance decreasing by the end of the war. They were found to be flexible enough to fill various roles, including exploitation tanks. The M3 Stuart was the main light tank in service with the US Army, USMC, and the Allies until 1944, before being replaced by the M5 Stuart. The M5 Stuart gradually replaced the older M3 Stuart in the US and Allied light tank arsenal until 1945.
Early British tank units were equipped with light, cruiser, and infantry tanks, designed by Vickers. France favored large fleets of light tanks for infantry support since the introduction of the Renault FT in 1918. Medium tanks were mostly considered cavalry models, capable of dealing with other tanks.
The Light Tank Company of the U.S. Army was integral to two different formations: the Tank and the Tank Crew. WW2 tanks had interior lights, with latewar tanks having red lights to prevent nightvision loss. Early Sherman tanks had white lights only, but later ones had red lights to help with night vision.
Tank crews in WW2 did not have giant flashing arrows above enemy forces, but many put up photos of loved ones or things they liked inside their tanks. Tanks were an important weapons system during World War II, and although some were made during the inter-war years, few were made. The turret had one to two interior lights on early tanks, and three on later Shermans.
📹 Life inside a M4 Sherman (Cross Section)
One of the most famous aspects of the Second World War was the introduction of fast moving maneuver warfare. Spearheading …
Do tanks have lights inside?
The interior lighting of tanks such as the Abrams, Bradley, and M113 is typically blueish in color. Additionally, crew members often utilize supplementary flashlights for enhanced safety and visibility.
Did they have lights in WW2?
Blackout regulations were imposed on 1 September 1939, before the declaration of war, to prevent the escape of light that might aid enemy aircraft. The government ensured the necessary materials were available, and external lights were switched off or dimmed to deflect light downward. Essential lights, such as traffic lights and vehicle headlights, were fitted with slotted covers to deflect their beams downwards. Shops and factories faced difficulties, as temporary blackout panels were impossible to install, and permanent methods lost natural light during daylight.
Shops had to install double “airlock” doors to avoid lights showing as customers arrived and departed. Blackouts disrupted civilian activities, causing widespread grumbling and lower morale. Civilian ARP wardens enforced the blackout, ensuring no buildings allowed the slightest peek or glow of light. Offenders were liable to stringent legal penalties.
Did Shermans have a hatch on the bottom?
The T6 prototype, completed in September 1941, featured a single large casting upper hull with a single overhead hatch for the driver and a side hatch. The modified T6 was standardized as the M4, with first production completed in February 1942. The cast-hull models were later re-standardized as M4A1, with the first welded-hull models receiving the designation M4. In August 1942, the Detroit Arsenal proposed a variant of the M4 with angled hull and turret armor to improve protection without increasing weight or degrading other technical characteristics.
As the United States entered World War II, armored employment was governed by Field Manual 100–5, Operations, which stated that the armored division was organized primarily for missions requiring great mobility and firepower, with a primary role in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.
Can you sleep inside a tank?
The sleeping arrangements of tankers in Vietnam are highly variable. The gunner’s position is arguably the least comfortable, while the driver’s position is arguably the most comfortable. However, it is possible to become accustomed to sleeping in any position.
Did WW2 tanks have night-vision?
Prior to the war, both the German and Soviet armies had deployed night vision systems on their tanks. However, the Red Army had not adopted this technology due to its high cost, whereas the Wehrmacht had integrated it into its military vehicles starting in 1943-44, including the Panthers, Tigers, and King Tigers.
Did WWII tanks have headlights?
The headlight on a World War II tank is a protective color spotlight.
What is a light tank in ww2?
A light tank is a tank variant designed for rapid movements in and out of combat, outmaneuvering heavier tanks. It is smaller, thinner, and equipped with a less powerful main gun, making it ideal for tactical mobility, transport, and logistics. Light tanks are primarily used in screening, armored reconnaissance, skirmishing, artillery observation, and fire support roles in expeditionary forces. The fast light tank was a major feature of the pre-World War II army buildup, used to exploit breakthroughs in enemy lines and disrupt communications and supply lines.
Early light tank designs were generally better armed and armored than armored cars, but used tracks for better cross-country mobility. The light tank has survived the development of the main battle tank, with technological advancements rendering all previous weight variants obsolete. Modified IFVs are now assuming these roles in many militaries due to their immediate availability and as a cheaper, versatile alternative to pure light tanks.
Did the Soviets like the Sherman?
The first 76mm-armed M4A2 diesel-fuel Shermans arrived in the Soviet Union in late 1944, and by 1945, some Red Army armoured units were standardized to rely on them instead of their T-34 tank. The Sherman was largely viewed positively by Soviet tank-crews due to its reliability, ease of maintenance, good firepower, and decent armor protection. Polish forces also used a variety of Shermans redirected from Lend-Lease shipments to the British Empire.
The Polish 1st Armoured Division entered the Battle of Normandy with Sherman Vs (M4A4s) with 75 mm guns, and VC Shermans. The reconnaissance battalion was equipped with Cromwells, as in British armoured divisions. After heavy losses in the Falaise Pocket and Dutch campaign, the division was re-equipped with Sherman IIA (M4A1 (W) 76 mm) models. The Polish II Corps, fighting in Italy, primarily used M4A2s (Sherman III) that had been used by the British Army in Africa, but some ICs and Sherman IB (M4(105 mm)) howitzer tanks were also used.
Did WW2 tanks have toilets?
The submarine, renowned for its ergonomic design, boasts four toilets or heads, a noteworthy and uncommon feature for a vessel of its era.
Did tanks have night vision in WW2?
The FG 1250 was a German active infrared night-vision device developed by Ing Gaertner of Carl Zeiss AG in 1941. It was produced by Ernst Leitz GmbH and consisted of a specialized mount, active infrared spotlight, and accompanying image converter. During World War II, the bulky FG 1250 unit was paired with MG 42’s on Sd. Kfz. 251/1 Falke half-track armored personnel carriers and MG 34’s on PzKpfw V Panther tanks. The device was used to detect and target enemy vehicles, providing valuable information for military personnel. The FG 1250 was a significant advancement in night vision technology during the war.
What was the darkest hour in WW2?
“The Darkest Hour” is a term used to describe an early period of World War II, from mid-1940 to mid-1941. Often attributed to Winston Churchill, the phrase is based on the proverb “the darkest hour is just before the dawn”. Churchill had previously used a similar phrase, referring specifically to France’s situation, in his “finest hour” speech on 16 June 1940. He also used similar terms when meeting with members of the Supreme War Council a week earlier. In 1949, Churchill described the period just before Dunkirk as “the darkest moment” and the period 1940-41 generally as “the darkest hours”. However, there is no evidence that he coined the phrase.
📹 Late War Lights – The M5 Stuart and M8 Scott
Following the success of the M3 Stuart, an improved model was created solving most of the vehicles issues – logistical or …
I watched this in memory of my grandfather. He was a Sherman Tank driver in WW2. Battle of the Bulge veteran, 5 Bronze stars, and European/African/Middle Eastern service medals. He seldom told stories, but I do recall him talking about how lucky he was during Battle of the Bulge, to have refuge from the cold while in the tank. My parents have his Bronze Stars and his Sherman Tank field maintenance booklet displayed at their home. He passed away 5 years ago. Strong, gentle man. May he rest peacefully.
When the 76mm main gun was added, it was found the Sherman could defeat the German Mk VI Tiger tanks frontal armor at 850 yards with standard ammunition. With the addition of the HVAP tank round, it was able to defeat the frontal armor of the Mk V Panther at 800 yards. However, I recommend a reading on the battle of Arracourt where the 4th Armored took out a Panzer Corps with standard 75mm armed Shermans. It appears that the story of pure numbers needed to kill German tanks was also horse manure. Using good tanking procedures worked just as well, along with combined arms warfare which the US Army was also very good at doing.
In the Canadian and British armies, the Sherman Firefly was used mainly as a command tank. By the time the First Canadian Army (which was a coalition comprised of Canadian, British, Polish, American and Free French units), had entered the Netherlands and cleared the Belgian port of Antwerp the armour war in northwestern Europe was more or less over. The last major tank battle happened in the Hochwald in northwestern Germany from early February to March 1945. Despite heavy losses, Canadian tank units prevailed.
I always read about the Sherman’s inferiority to German armor, but the point that’s never brought up is that the Sherman was a medium tank 32 tons as opposed to the panther and tiger which were almost twice the weight. Sherman’s problem was its low velocity gun . The Firefly version proved that. Also overlooked is that it was easy to maintain and easy to restore after being knocked out. The M-26 Pershing should have been brought out a lot sooner
Good overview and glad you addressed its undeserved poor reputation. I would add 3 aspects of the Sherman than made it successful: logistics, logistics, and logistics. They were made in the USA, but had to be transported to Europe and be able to traverse most European bridges. The reliability and simple design also simplified the parts supply train, meaning less had to be shipped over.
“hoped to be sufficient for future conflict” – not really. The American military knew that the M3 was a stopgap measure, something that let them field a 75mm gun in the present rater than having to wait for the M4 Sherman to be ready for war. Lastly, the 75mm wasn’t just ‘sufficient’ for the anti-tank role vs the 76mm, but it was actually superior; when using HE shells, the 75mm proved far more effective because the lower velocity of the gun meant that you could build shells with thinner casings and more explosives inside. Even so, 75mm Shermans could penetrate the most common German armor systems – the StuG III and the Panzer IVs – from the front. It really is overstated because of article games and movies how often Tigers and Panthers showed up to fight Shermans and other Allied tanks on the Western Front, since most of the time they were shot up by the air forces or were encountered by infantry and destroyed by bazookas or other anti-tank weapons. But Tiger Terror was a very real thing, to the point that – there were only a handful confirmed encounters between Tigers and Shermans; most often it was due to tank crews misidentifying any Panzer as a ‘Tiger’ due to fog-of-war.
The Sherman is my favorite piece of armor in history. She’s not just a tank, she’s a heavily armored utility vehicle with a gun. She wasn’t just built for warfare, she was built for transport, rescue operations, vehicle recovery, reconnaissance, and if she was damaged enough, a few half-effort “repairs” make her a fantastic decoy. A very powerful and efficient tool at a very good price $45,000 – $64,000 (equivalent to $608,000 – $880,000 in 2017) per unit. Compared to the modern day M1 Abrams at over $10 Million ($588,000 in 1945)
It’s one of if not the best tank of WW2 and it was the best tank by far for what America needed. A reliable and easily fixable tank with decent firepower and survivability. They had to ship all the tanks over seas so needed to be light enough for the cranes to transport it and reliable with parts easily available because they are FAR from home.
I think Chieftain looked up statistics-Sherman crews had a 97% survival rate. It was still high even after a direct hit thanks to the easy egress and hatches. He also stated the big thing people forget is that it had to be shipped across an ocean before even getting into combat and it’s relative ease of shipping, simple design, ease of maintenance and reliability were the real war winning capabilities.
The M3 did have a rotating turret (1:21). It housed a 37mm canon as that was enough for most enemy tanks at the time (ie., Panzer 2s and 3s). The 75mm in the tank body was for anti-structure and personnel. The tank was fine for its day and, as @Ceege48 pointed out, was an interim solution until the Sherman arrived. One interesting bit of information was that the crews would use only baby grand pianos and not the full sized ones (7:57). The baby grand were easier to adjust after getting hit so it was the preferred choice. In a pinch, they could even use a bass guitar when available. Violens needed to be numerous so they were not a good option…☺
Many years aga, as an Army 2nd Lieutenant in an armored battalion, I had extra duty as the partnership officer and spent time with a Bundeswehr Panzer battalion. While there, I spoke with two company commanders . One who was a former Wehrmacht Panzer officer and another who was former Waffen SS. Panzer officer. They had both trained on Mark V Panther tanks, a later on Mr Shermans. They both said the same thing. They would rather have the Sherman in an attack and the Panther in the defense.
Logistic experts have pointed out that the Sherman was what it was because it was made in the US and Canada and had to be shipped thousands of miles to get to where the war was. And you can get more smaller tanks in a cargo ship than larger, bulkier tanks. The idea was that bigger was better but more was best.
The M4 Sherman was actually a very survivable Tank. The Armor was only 3 inches, but its 30-degree angle gave it protection actually superior to that of Tiger A’s 4 inches of armor at 10-degrees (and only in some places), with about 4.5 inches of equivalent protection (Sherman) to 4.1 inches of equivalent protection (Tiger). The German guns were simply so high velocity, that there was literally nothing short of a Battleship that could deflect the fire. The German 8.8cm was designed as an Anti-Aircraft Gun and meant to knock Heavy Bombers flying at 15,000 feet out of the sky. No Tank would be able to stop that kind of fire in 1942-1945 at 1,500 yards. In addition, the US Army used a novel approach to its Armor. Rather than use Hardened Steel like the Germans, the US Army designed its Armor with Crew Survivability in mind. The Armor was designed to be proofed up to a certain point, which is why German 5cm guns failed to penetrate at any angle and early German 7.5cm guns larger than the 25 caliber Infantry Support Gun found on Panzer IV Ausf D, would actually bounce off Sherman’s Frontal Armor initially. The US Army’s approach would stop opposing ammunition at a point, reduce the dangers to the crew after that point, or if overwhelming, like a 8.8cm or 12.8cm round, let the round through in hopes it didn’t hit anything important or the crew and if all went well, the exploding ballistic cap would be delayed long enough for the crew to get out before it exploded inside the Tank. Apparently went as well as could be expected as the US Army’s Tank Causalities were actually very low, including being less than 5% of all fatalities.
I always considered tank crews one of the bravest soldiers in war (after submarine crews) despite the fact that they are protected by heavy armor. The SU lost most of their tanks but they just kept going and going. It must be a terrifying thought that everyone at the enemy lines is going to hunt YOU the second they see your tank. Other tanks, infantry with anti-tank weapons, 88s, hostile citizens, Hitler’s grandma, everyone. You are not just a soldier anymore, you are the primary target. It’s even worse now that guided anti-tank weapons exist and the enemy can blast you from like 3 miles away. Tank service sucks, Russians are learning it the hard way nowadays.
Look I’M a German fanboy, engineering not politics, but I have to give it to the Sherman and T-34, proof that sometimes you win a war by having superior numbers of “good enough” than lower numbers of “superior” machines. Whoever the nutter was to put a 17 pounder in a Sherman… I hope somebody bought you a drink, excellent Big Cat hunting weapon.
I met a German WW2 on a visit to Essen. He’d been a tank crewman and we got to talking about Shermans. He told me that the German nickname for them when the British first took them into action in North Africa was Tommy cookers. The tank would usually catch fire when hit due to being petrol engines rather than diesel and the crew often couldn’t escape before being burnt to death. He only had respect for the Firefly version and only then because of the gun.
Thank you for the article. I like that the M-3 was originally named Lee but changed to Grant when given to the Brits in Lend/Lease. My Dad (741st Tk Bat) was in a Sherman from Omaha Easy Red, thru Paris and the Bulge, to Prague and he said the ammunition around him in the turret was a subject of great concern. He also lost a couple of TCs who had led with their heads above the turret rather than under the closed hatch.
People always look at the hard factors of tanks, but don’t realize it’s the soft factors that make the tank good. The Soviets even loved the tank so much. When elite crews got it, provided detail of how great the tank was for a crew. Not to mention, the Sherman had the best survivability of any tank that’s to its spring powered hatches. The Sherman was the best tank of the war. It’s the F-series of tanks.
The most amazing facts about the Sherman are the production time and cost of it.The later variants like the easy 8 are from my perspective the most efficient tanks of the war. if you play mowas 2 and come across some heavy german armor then dont forget the sherman zippo works like a charm against the big kitty´s 🙂
The Sherman was a very solid platform for just about anything the army needed. The simple design allowed it to be modified heavily and made repairs easy. While a Tiger might’ve been a bigger threat, fixing a damaged Tiger I was very difficult, often requiring heavy equipment and dismantling a large amount of the tank to get to damaged parts. The Sherman was an excellent example of how US logistics in WWII were streamlined so significantly that parts, ammunition and anything else you could need were able to be brought where you needed it, when you needed it. This wasn’t the case for other forces like Germany, whose blitzkreig tactics often left their supply lines thin and vulnerable. The Sherman was an excellent vehicle for its intended role.
While I love my countries Cromwell tank, I can’t deny that the Sherman was probably the best tank of the war, with the T-34 as a close second. When you see the features that made it easy to maintain, repair and keep in the field, such as the modular suspension that could be easily replaced, the mind boggles at what German engineers were thinking with those overly complex big cats, especially when their cities and factories were being blown to bits by “Bomber” Harris.
If one wishes to see how versatile the Sherman was, one only has to visit the great tank museums of the world, like Yad La Shiryon in Israel, to see numerous versions that were produced, and that the M 51 Super Sherman was used by the IDF long after the ” German Big cats” were consigned to either museums or the scrap heap
Don’t forget that the Sherman tank was designed to be fielded an entire ocean away from the factories that produced them. These machines needed to be beat on used and abused on a battlefield far away from a refit facility, repaired quickly and in the field. This combined with such a high crew survival rate is all the more reason why the Sherman deserves to be considered a huge success.
The Germans mostly fielded PzIII’s and PzIV’s along with a lot of tank destroyer types. The 75mm had no issues dealing with them at all. Panthers and Tigers were a rarity. So rare that you can count the number of engagements just both hands. When they did show up the 76mm gun on US tank destroyers and some newer Shermans had no issues defeating them. It was never a controversial tank at all. In fact the controversy came about post WWII thanks to the British trying to propagandize their newer tanks. The “Ronson” slogan wasn’t even invented until after the war. The truth is that the M4 Sherman was one of the best tanks during the war as it met all of the war needs in one way or another. Other tank designs had serious shortcoming in one way or another. The T34-85 would later turn out to be heavily overrated as it was easily defeated by both Tigers and Panthers in the same way as the Sherman. In Korea, the Shermans had no issues destroying T34’s either. Both the 75mm and 76mm could defeat its armor.
From my point of view the Sherman was an excellent vehicle. The presentation did not mention the distances it covered from Normandy to Germany. It was easy to upgrade and one of the other innovations was the implementation of a water jacket for the tanks to minimise detonation from enemy strike. They had a while to study tank design and the Brits to test their builds but the tank was very good. Don’t forget that the Panthers and Tigers were defensive weapons which gave them the advantage in combat.
American doctrine at the time called for tank destroyers to combat German tanks. An argument can be made that the Sherman was the best tank of the war. It was easy to maintain, had good gas mileage, and was an amazing breakthrough tank. Once a column of Shermans was past the front line it they wouldn’t encounter anything more armored than a truck anyways.
Hey.I have a article idea of you you like it. Could you please do a article about the devils brigade because my great grandfather was in it and he was a Sargent and he was a paratrooper.His name was E.L Sargent (Tiny) Maclean from Canada. But he died in 1995.I’ve never met him but my mom got to see his maps and his medals.If you already made a article about this topic that’s ok.Thank you
1:30 No the main gun was the top mounted 37mm, the 75mm was mainly a howitzer designed to mainly shoot HE rounds to support the infantry, not as an anti tank gun, although it could be used to do such tasks. 9:15 and the firefly, cause the gun had to be mounted sideways making using the gyrostabiliser impossible 11:02 this is a common myth
2:45 Nice 3D view of the tank’s dimensions. Those X-Y-Z axes are usually only seen in scientific articles. BUT (because there’s always a but) maybe leave the numbers from the Z dimension, as it made them hard to see. Still, this is one of the few times I’ve seen a military history website put the vehicle in 3D like that. Nice!
My grandfather was a Sherman tank Commander in WW2 and was one of the few tanks that ended up making it to the beach at Normandy during D-Day. He fought in France and Belgium before his tank got destroyed. He ended up with multiple purple hearts and bronze stars. Outside of what our grandmother told us. He didn’t really say much about what happened over there.
The M4, M4A1, M4A2 etc. designations aren’t evolutions as used today but variants often developed and used simultaneously. The M4 was a welded hull model, the M4A1 a cast hull, M4A2 had a diesel engine, the M4A3 was a gasoline model with a Ford engine instead of the Continental in other models, M4A4 was had a longer hull to accomodate the Chrysler Multibank engine, the M4A6 had a diesel engine and some modification for use by the Marines etc..
1:21 What? If there is clear one thing to not trust anything you say, it’s the fact you can’t even get the dialogue to match up with the image. It had a 37mm calibre gun turret, with a shell (apparently) capable of penetrating about the same armour. The dual gun, turret + sponson design is one of it’s most notable feature, not the lack there-of. If you meant it’s main gun wasn’t in the turret, specify it. You get paid from these articles, if you can’t get the clear details correct – how can the rest of it be trusted?
Did they not put fluids in the lower shell compartment 😊 they mixed anti freezer and a light oil with water. The antifreeze was for colder climate to prevent water protection from freezing 😊 this greatly protects the shells from exploding if the tank was HIT. 😊 I always wondered why the manufacturer did not study German armor better. So a hit by ( Sherman) would at least disable the Panzers. I totally understand the mass production idea. But boy your squad of tanks better work together. I feel the Germans had a better system for a group of tanks on command and control of the outfit. You see now with Russian columns of tanks all together in the fight against Ukraine. That the old cold war tactics the Russians use, Ukraine’s use of Drone anti tank firepower takes out the Russian very easily. I love the “NEW” Built ISRAEL type Tanks. They can carry a small group of soldiers inside. The engine is moved up front to protect the driver. The Female drive who was interviewed smiles and said there is so much room inside that the crew can have a party inside the new tank. I just think WOW a combo Tank that is an APC 😊❤😊
The M3 did have a turret it was where they mounted the 37mm gun. It wasn’t the only tank built that way. The Char B1 and Churchill Mk.I also had a larger gun the hull along with the turret gun. And the M7 Priest is based on an M3 Lee chassis. Also the Grant wasn’t a renamed Lee but had a new turret that removed the machine gun copula and had a bustle for the Wireless No. 19 so you could reduce the crew form 7 to 6.
A word on armour. One must remember that when Sherman was designed, it was meant to deflect the most common anti-tank weapons of the time – 37mm and 50mm guns at ranges of around 500-700m, which is an average combat distance of the time. And for that purpose, Sherman’s armour was pretty adequate – when it first arrived, it was generally better protected than any other similar tank at the time – with German Panzer IV F2 sporting up to 50mm effective armour, while Sherman had about 95mm effective. The thing is – Germans quickly started implementing longer barrelled 75mm guns – at this point Sherman’s protection was not exactly that adequate, but neither was protection of German tanks – iconic Tigers were too few in numbers to count. A word on armament: There is a myth that Sherman’s gun was not meant to engage tanks. That is straight up lie. Around the same time M3 GMC halftrack tank destroyer was equipped with a very similar 75mm cannon. The tanks it was expected to deal with were various iterations of Panzer III and Panzer IV. Sherman’s gun was able to rather reliably deal with any German tank at the time of its introduction, save for a Tiger, which was a rare sight anyway. Sherman’s 75mm stopped being fully adequate only during Italian campaign, where more prominent numbers of Tigers were encountered, and later also some Ferdinands and Panthers. Shermans were originally designed with futureproofing in mind. Gun housing could be easily exchanged and Americans had a prototype with 76mm gun ready quite early.
Thank you for the shout out about the NEW game coming out 😊 sounds like a neat strategy game. 😊 If the driver was a previous Cat Skinner operator 😊 he could be very efficient at turning the ( Sheman) I like how it had Dozer like lever control If the driver was good at turning a Dozer quick like, the tank could turn faster 😊 I wonder how many Tanks made it through a very over powering German fight, because the Driver could maneuver his tank out of harms way 😊
The M3 had one massive advantage for the British in North Africa. For the first time they had an armoured vehicle with a gun that could fire decent high explosive rounds at the Germans. That was very important in neutralising German anti-tank guns and probably also in attacking infrantry and other targets like trucks. The importance of this should not be under estimated.
The problems with the M4 Sherman are greatly over exaggerated in my opinion. For a medium all purpose design the M4 was in a class of its own with no real equals. It had many great features like 25 to 30 mph speed on roads was extremely easy to maintain and was a awesome jack of all trades tank. Later versions had wet storage for the ammunition that stopped fires from happening and increased crew survival also it’s escape hatches where bigger than most making it easy to get out in a emergency. Controls were simple and it had a fast turret speed and fire mode that was quicker than german tanks making the Sherman deadly in a tank duel. The later 76mm high velocity gun could handle most german armored vehicles. It proved itself capable of destroying T34-85 tanks during the Korean war and was very reliable.
Most of the M4s especially the “A” Sub-Variants are just Factory Specific or used as a base for Manufacturing these Sub-Variants, they’re defined by their Engines and either have a Unique Hull and or had a modification at some point M4 : Used a Contintental Radial Aircraft Engine and mostly used the 75mm or 105mm Canon M4A1: Very Identifiable because of its Curvy Hull and one of the others to use the T23 Turret and 76mm Canon (used the same engine as the Standard M4) M4A2: Used GM’s Twin Inline-Six Diesel Engine, was Exported to Russia and also used by the US Marine Corp. M4A3: Powered by Ford’s GAA V8 Gasoline Engine, this was the more popular Variant, would undergo several Upgrades as it turned into the E8 and when it temporarily became the M4A3E2 “Jumbo” M4A4: Powered by Chrylser’s Multi-Bank Radial Engine, mostly used by the British, most commonly seen as the Sherman Firefly M4A5: Is technically not a Sherman, but it used its Chassis, it was used by the Canadians and it does not look like the sherman at all. M4A6: 75 would be built, they were based on the M4A4 and their Front Cheeks were actually Cut and Welded to look like the M4A1’s and can be easily confused from a distance
The Sherman wasn’t intended to fight tank to tank with German tanks. The US had dedicated Tank Dedtroyers. But because the United States had mighty manufacturing capacities even if German tanks destroyed a half dozen or more Shermans there was still another to come up to eventually destroy the German tanks.
The way I see it, there was no need for the Sherman to be a tank killing bada$$. The U.S. already had a slew of infantry AT weaponry such as the M18 and M20 Recoilless Rifles, the M1, M1A1, and M9 Bazookas, crew served AT weaponry such as the M1 57 MM, M3 37 MM and m5 3-Inch AT guns as well as two Tank Destroyers, the M10 Wolverine and the M18 Hellcat. So there really wasn’t a pressing need to make the M4 Sherman a tank killer, it was intended to support infantry against field artillery and hardened defenses such as bunkers and pillboxes sporting machinegun emplacements and it did that job perfectly.
It was an all around utility tank,perfect for the rapid mobile warfare that the US Army doctrine advocated at that time,the M4 Sherman, the M3 half track,M7 self propelled gun, the Ford Gpw (Jeep), and the 21/2 tn truck formed the back bone of US and allied armored,mechanized and motorized divisions…..the Sherman was reliable,easily maintained and repaired,with the numbers produced easily replaced, something the largely over engineered panzers (particularly the PzKw VI,PzKw VII)could not match….which proved to be decisive factors…
My father was a tank platoon commander during the Battle of Okinawa, in the 713th TBT. According to the unit’s “actual “after action” report, written in 1945, their Sherman’s had their 75mm guns replaced with “modified RONSON flame throwers.” These tanks were capable of firing streams of napalm up to 100 yards. They were exceptionally effective when used against enemy soldiers in caves and pillboxes. These Sherman’s were on occasion referred to as Ronsons and Zippos because of their firepower, not because they burned when hit.
The Sherman was the only tank that could mow through the hedgerows after Nomandy. Thanks to a soldier in the field who made a sawtooth attachemnet to weld to the front of the tanks. The Nazis had great tanks but they couldn’t be repaired in the field like a Sherman could. They were narrow enough for ancient city streets and light enough to drive over rickety bridges. Worked well in the sandy enviornment of the Pacific campaign. One advantage the Nazis had was they didn’t have to load their tanks on ocean going freighters. The panzers were hard to knock out until the weather cleared. That’s when the fighters came out and bombed them from the skies. Napalm bombs were very effective against them and any caught out in the open didn’t last long on the western front.
Sad to see quite some inaccuracies/lack of explanation, let me point some out: 1. 5:46 A note is displayed claiming that the M4A3 has one extra hatch on the turret. This is misleading/false due to this being turret depended, not version dependent. The T23 turret had the extra hatch. There where M4A3’s produced with the earlier turret, however the US army (the main user of the M4A3) converted basically all of them to house the T23 turret. 2. 7:22 While it is true that the armor was limited to save weight, the implication that it was soley to increase the tanks speed and manouverability is simply false, as the main limiting factor for the weight was dependent on harbour cranes. Seeing how the US militair has to fight all the fights abroad. Sacrificing survivability to do so seems unlikely, seeing the very high crew survivability of the Sherman 3. 7:41 The earlier versions of the shermans wheren’t really cast because the M4, M4A1, M4A2, M4A3, and M4A4 wheren’t really consequative models like the germans did them. Most if not all of these models where in production at the same time. The difference being that the M4A1 had a cast hull. All other variants had welded hulls (this includes the M4). The M4 and M4A1 had the radial engine, the M4A2 had the diesel engine, the M4A3 had the gasoline engine, and the M4A4 had the multibank engine (the 5 car engines stuck together, yeah the british didn’t do that, the USA did). These different variants ended up in different places, and from the front, some of them are indistinguisable.
Just want to point out yes the sherman was intended to use as infantry support But just like chieftain said infantry support includes fighting other tanks so no sherman wasnt built too support infantry but its use in tanks vs tanks engagement to. Also yes america still.produce the 75 shell because of logistic by the time the boots hit the ground at normandy the 75 is what they bring.. Chieftain point out the why but the main reason why its suddenly struggle even though they were smashing panthers etc in italy was because it already in very specific area of war ie they fighting entrance enemy position. I think a good clue as to how good the sherman was during aracourt shows how experince sherman crew handle the big cat.
Those welds sound like they had very short duty cycles. But also I truly didnt thing GMAW was available during Ww2, but apparently that and SMAW and GTAW were available by that time . Impressive. Until it comes to the craftsmanship of Soviet tanks. Those were trash filled with porosity and slag inclusion, the Germans definitely had a better WPS
1:20 “was the lack of a rotating turret”. I’m literally looking at the rotating turret right there in the article… The “main gun” was not mounted on a side position, both the sponson 75 and the turret 37 were “main guns”. The 75mm gun on the side was its infantry support weapon, mean to fire high explosive shells at fortified infantry positions. (though it could be used for anti-tank purposes too, that wasn’t its primary function). The 37mm gun, the smaller one in the turret, is actually the anti-tank gun. 37mm was a very common pre-war anti-tank caliber. This is the same as the Pre-War Panzer IV and Panzer III. The short barreled 75mm Panzer IV was infantry support, the 37mm gun on the Panzer III was an anti-tank weapon, since the Panzer III was the anti-tank half of the equation. The M3 tried to combine both of these into one. Its just the 37mm become woefully inadequate as an anti-tank weapon as the war progressed. But by 1930s standards was more than sufficient.
I really enjoy these articles. You aren’t scared to voice an opinion, but you have a good sense of humour and keep things well balanced. I also love your voice work. Top notch stuff for beginners, but its not so dumb an old hand won’t find it boring. Well done. Moreover, I love the Sherman, a great little tank. I am a Panzer IV H and T34 fanboy, but anybody can argue for a Sherman over either, and I won’t complain.
We could say that the Sherman was an average tank by its technical characteristics but had the advantage of being easy to mass produce, albeit on a continent not affected by war. With that said, WW2 veterans former Sherman crew members describe it as significantly inferior compared to the Panther and Tiger and thank God that they seldom encountered these two.
They were designed to be easy enough to mass produced, the parts fit so well, because they had to, there weren’t any vices in the tank workshops. The parts were all pretty much plug’n’play. The 75mm gun was capable of a lot more than its given credit for. It could reliably kill a panzer 4, and even kill a Tiger, and not just from the sides or rear. The front armor was as almost as good as a Tiger 1’s. About 97-98 mm vs about 100mm for a Tiger. And it’s slope made bounces more probable. It was roomier and had a three-man turret where most tanks had a two-man turret and was built to a Very high quality standard. If something didn’t work, it wasnt shipped until it was fixed. And as far as numbers were concerned, America hadnt even bit its full stride in tank production, we could have easily beaten the Soviets and had a better tank to boot. It was a Very well thought-out tank. The designers had to make additions and cuts where they had to and came up with the greatest oberall tank of WW2. Fight👏. Me👏.
The stock M4 with the 75 wasn’t the best tank in the war but it was a reliable workhorse that got the job done. The easy eights and fireflies were respected by the Germans and were made a priority target in engagement. Their high velocity guns along with improved AP rounds could dispatch the Tigers and Panthers in a frontal engagement easily. The Americans could produce tens of thousands of M4’s versus a very limited quantity of Tigers and Panthers by the Germans. Between the Soviet T34’s and the American M4’s, the German panzer corps never really had a hope of winning a long term campaign. It was just a matter of time.
Logistically it was the best tank of the war. It fought in every theater, could handle all climates and was customizable. Unlike the British, Germans and French the Americans and Soviets understood tank warfare was about numbers in support of combined arms. Pick one design and pump it out. America also shipped their tanks half way around the world and couldn’t afford to keep sending them back home to be repaired, they needed to be simple enough to keep operating in Europe and The Pacific without major factories.
@Simple History, You left out a detail worthy of being included: The aircraft engine that powered the Sherman had a limited life before rebuild. In the 1940s lubricants, engine rings, bearings, valves, value seats and seals were primitive compared to today. The engine was scheduled to be completely rebuilt after **175 hours** of engine operation. Rebuilding the engine required a clean, complete machine shop and trained machinists. Most often those weren’t found anywhere near a combat zone, the entire engine was pulled out and replaced with a brand new engine shipped from the states. Engines didn’t last very long, it was easier to replace than rebuild. You can find references for the engine hours replacement in the original 1940s technical manuals.
I believe one of the Generals stated that the Sherman: Was the Right tank, at the Right time, for the Right war. “All” tanks have flaws. Most of the Sherman’s flaws were due to it needing to be able to be transported across the pond. This meant that while it COULD have been built with much heavier armor, that would limit how many could be shipped across that dangerous trek per run. It was given as much armor as it needed to do its job, knowing that many would be lost. Russia was not the only nation doing the “win by sheer numbers” game during WWII, we were just not quite so dead-set on it as to send out Tanks with no ammo, or infantry with no guns. But we would send 5 Sherman’s after 1 tiger in the hopes that at least 1 of them would manage to use its maneuverability to flank it (unless there was a Firefly or a Jumbo near who’d just throw a round through its face)
Some additional info for those interested. The 75 mm M3 cannon wasn’t really the main issue for the Shermans lackluster first run in the deserts of Africa. A lot of the issue stemmed from the ammunition instead. Once changes were made to said ammunition, the gun performed much better. And on the note of the 75 mm gun being “underpowered”, overall it wasn’t. The Sherman was indeed a general purpose tank and what it’s AP shells lacked in heavy tank killing power, they more than made up for with it’s fantastic HE shell. Which were great against lighter armored vehicles and dug in enemy soldiers. This, along with supporting fire for the troops, was the main role of the Sherman tank and it excelled in this. Tank on tank fights happened only about 15% of the time I believe, and even when the Shermans did fight other tanks, it’s AP was usually more than adequate except for the heavier tigers and panther. Against earlier panzer tanks, stugs, spgs, etc, which usually only had about 30-80 mm of armor, the Shermans M3 75 mm gun was perfectly capable of fighting with AP shells.
Your conclusion is rather flawed. It was able to fulfill the role the army intended for it, yes. The problem is, that role was entirely in their heads and warfare had evolved by the time the US actually started fighting. The US wanted tanks to support infantry, and tank destroyers to engage enemy armor. Pretty much everyone else on earth realized that a single vehicle can do both if you design it properly, and both the M4 and M10 were deathtraps. If all you need is something to take out a machine gun nest, then sure a sherman will do the job. But war isn’t that neat. You need a vehicle that can take out a machine gun nest, and successfully fight whatever comes to defend it, which may well be a panther.
People that believe the US didn’t care the solider life and mass produce Sherman instead of some super tank, let me tell you, you are stupid. It is really simple, because the main fighting force is always the infantary, so you would rather have small amount of super tank, which can’t be avaliable to the infantry everytime? Or a a decent tanks (which btw as mentioned can already kill most of the tank from Axis) that avaliable and in dozen every time?
The Americans constantly thought about how to improve crew survival rates. Most other nations didn’t bother with this. So many Sherman tankers lived to complain! But it was done beccause at the start of the war we had no experience with armored warfare so getting veteran crews to live to train fresh crews was a major objective or the US. Eventually by Bastogne, US crews were more seasoned than the German counterparts who were forced to turn to conscripts and militia to replace their losses. This simply by having American crews be better at not getting killed.
The limit of nearly all cranes at seaports around the U.S. was about 40 tons so that limited the size of tanks the U.S. could build and ship. Later in the war the U.S. finally started building and shipping large tanks like the Pershing with a 90mm gun that could take on the Tiger and the like head on.
The sherman was quick and easy to build but overall it was a terrible tank and the crew where always afraid driving them because of the little protection it had against anti tank weapons and other tanks. Its gun was really useless against other MBT and the Americans wouldn’t increase the gun size to 88mm because of rheinmetalls design of the 88 and they didn’t want to copy the nazis. Really silly move.
“The M4 Sherman wasn’t designed as a tank destroyer, but for infantry support” Firstly, isn’t it interesting how US tank destroyers like the M10 and M3 GMC also use a 75mm like the supposed undergunned M4 Sherman? It’s weird how according to internet “historians” the Sherman’s 75 is weak but never say the same to the Wolvorine. Funny how that works? And second, engaging tanks are part of the infantry support role, if US infantry encountered a hostile enemy tank, anything but a tank destroyer is supposed to kill that tank. Tank destroyers are purely held for defense and would never engage in the offensive, thus leaving the job to the M4, which it did well for what it was.
Patton said it was better to use planes against tanks and tanks against infantry. The real reason they used this type of tank was for logistics. The American military had to cross an ocean just to deploy. The American army moved fast and had massive air superiority. This is why the Sherman made sense. Patton liked to combine tank and infantry operations with air power and exploit deep penetrations into the enemy’s rear. Eisenhower put a wrench in this type of warfare preferring to allow the Russians to advance. They wanted to ensure a cold war so they could grease the wheels of the military industrial complex..
A WWII Sherman commander told me that while the commander could be vulnerable to small arms fire, the commander was often the only survivor when the tank was hit. If he had out he would be forcefull ejected when the tank was hit. He also said that the worst hit could be to the transmission because it produced a lot of shrapnel inside the tank.
Something of notable is that all variants like the m4a1 or m4a3 where actually made at the same time just by different companies and the difference in name is due to the engine being different per company and only veriants that have a E are different ones made at different times and the high numbers thing is only because of American tank squad sizes that where 5 tanks per squad
The term “Ronson” was likely adopted by the soldiers of WW2 during the war; they weren’t waiting for the lighter company to adopt it after the war. Another modification to mitigate ignition of main gun ammunition hit by enemy fire was to introduce a water jacket located above the main gun shells, that when hit would dump water onto the shells thereby reducing the incidents of fires & explosions.
Compared to the German contemporary equivalent, the Panzer IV from G to J models, the Sherman was actually better designed, had better survivability, was more reliable and had better mobility. What made Panzer IV’s stay competitive against more modern designs such as the Sherman and T-34 was its very powerful gun, the 75mm KwK 40 which was far superior to the American 75mm M3, the British Ordnance QF 75mm and the Soviet 76mm F-34.
Great article! Couple of corrections. The M18 had an M1A1 and later M1A2 76mm gun, just like the gun found on later variants of the Sherman. Also, what you showed as being a dozer blade on a Stuart is actually a Cullen/Cullin hedgerow cutter. These were used in Normandy after the landings to aide in combatting the dense bocage terrain the US forces found themselves in. They were built from leftover metal of German beach obstacles.
I don’t know why but the M8 HMC looks somewhat cute to me. It was the first short-barrel but large caliber tank design that I saw so I became fond of it (for example: BT-42, KV-2). I often wonder what would’ve happened if these guns were retrofitted to more modern ammunition like HESH on this Howitzer Motor Carriage. HEAT is available to it already (at least in War thunder which I know isn’t a good source) but just the idea of WW2 tanks and weapons in a modern environment how would stand beside the new stuff (poorly but paper can hold anything😅)
My dad was a driver on an M5A1 in Europe during the war. He was in the Seventh Armored Division. He told my brothers and I about the one time they were hit by a German shell which blew off their left track, forcing the crew to run for the Allied lines. Other than that, I know he was involved in the Battle of the Bulge in late 1944 and early 1945. He arrived in France a couple of weeks after D-Day and was still there when the war in Europe was over in May, 1945..
Really enjoyed this vid as I am very interested in the M 5′ Development. Also the various support gun versions. I have come to appreciate the linear development of the series. As it saved money and led to constantly improving the M3/M5 per battlefield experience. This paired with making sure the factory could implement these changes without delay in the production process. Thanks for the introduction article with the earlier development history of combat car.😂
If you don’t mind, I’ll add two prototypes; the AA variant with twin .50cal M2 in what might be the same turret as the Staghound AA, and the extended Chassis* AA variant which was tested with a quad 20mm and a dual 40mm** weapon mounting. Beyond that, the extended chassis was also mounted with the 4.7″ (114mm) gun. *Three bogies to each side, instead of two. ** later mounted on the Chaffee as the M19MGMC.
I thought you’re going to talk about the Brazilian bernardini X1 which is a light tank they developed to replace the m3 Stuart for the army, and I think that’s pretty interesting to talk about. You article is really interesting anyway, I’ve never thought I would feel entertained looking at the Stuart development. You’re doing a great job.
My city has an M5 stuart near the regimental building. The original hull was used as a light tank and was knocked out during the Normandy campaign. The regiment that comes from my city found the vehicle and noticed that although the turret was destroyed, the hull could still be used. So they took the vehicle back to base, removed the turret, refurbished the hull, and used the tank as a scouting vehicle until the end of the war. It now sits proudly as a turretless M5 tank
Great article. My Father (1909-1968) commanded a light/medium tank squad in action on Leyte and Okinawa. We have very little information but believe his tanks were Stuarts and patrolled 3 to a group. It sounded like he was involved with infantry support. Do you know what types were used in those operations?
I finally figured out something that’s been bothering me for a while – what those things on the sides of the M5 turret are! I first noticed them on an M5 that a VFW nearby has in front of their building. My guess was that they were spare track segments, and a couple of online sources I found seemed to confirm that… Except those things don’t look like the normal track links at all, I spent some time staring at them. Finally, I found your article and learned that these are “track grousers” – never heard the word before, but now I know what they are! THANK YOU!
At 11:20, that isn’t a bulldozer blade. That’s a “hedge cutter”. It was the allies answer to the hedgerows in the Normandy fighting after D-Day. Most were made from scrap metal taken from the German defenses along the beaches. I’ve seen articles of them ramming the hedgerows and knocking holes through them. Nice job on your articles; the Stuart is one of my favorite tanks from WW2.
The M8 continued to be used by Cavalry Squadrons (Mechanized) until the end of WW2. After all, the first M24 light tanks weren’t issued until Dec 1944, which meant most units were still equipped with M5’s at the end of the war. Since the M8 was a derivative of the M5, it made sense logistically to retain them until the M5 was replaced.