The Sherman Story | The Tank Museum


we’re going to have a look at absolutely
classic American series of vehicles the Sherman tank family now the Sherman is
really an amazing American design success because they made it so quickly
they built factories out in America it took six months to build a whole new
factory in fact that wasn’t enough ended up building two whole new factories to
build Sherman tanks in right from the casting to the assembly and the
assembly lines of the automobile industry now become assembly lines of
defense but no one in the United States had ever turned out giant 31 ton tanks
in mass quantities they were not enough factory space to make enough Sherman’s
of the same type they were going to have to have different types of engines and
they come up with an m3 a1 as part of the process of building them they’re
learning a lot about things such as track development suspension what type
of engines we might be able to use some of the components on that Stuart tank
are actually used in the development of first the m1 then the m2 tank that
they’re going to put into production so they build an interim tank that’s the m3
grant Tang where they put a 75 millimeter gun on the hull of the
vehicle they really want to build this tank that’s coming on now the m4 Sherman
it was gonna have the Continental or 975 radial engine on the m4a1 which was a
cast turret and we’re seeing a cast heritage Sherman going around now they’d
also use a radial engine but on the m4 a – they got a twin diesel engine it was a
General Motors 671 diesel engine the m4a3 tank ended up with a Ford
petrol engine in it and they ended up also with the m4a4
which has a Chrysler multi-bank engine in the back of it and if you look at our
variant they’re driving round at the moment the Sherman from the Fury movie
that’s the Tank Museum Sherman that one’s got the 76 millimeter gun on the Sherman has got the 75 millimeter
gun cool purpose that 75 millimeter gun why they liked it
most British tanks could only fire armor-piercing or they could only fire
high-explosive in the close support role what they didn’t tend to do is be able
to fire both types around that 75 millimeter was a cracking gun in both
capacities there’s only later with the pressure
from penetrating thicker German armor that they ended up putting that 76
millimeter gun on and that’s actually got a much much greater velocity even
though it’s only a millimeter bigger but a greater velocity of the round comes
out and of course the British put their 17 pounder gun on the Sherman as well
and make it a fire fly that 17 pounder with discarding sabot mission that had
more penetration power than the 88 millimeter on a tiger one this british
adaptation has been supplied in large numbers and has been most successful
against the Germans now the Sherman driving on now actually has a hundred
and five millimeter gun it was done as a close support version and we say close
support really it’s there to fire high explosive now that Sherman you can see
it’s got that longer body on it it’s got the late-war hv SS horizontal volute
suspension system on it which was another improvement on the Sherman’s and
that longer body is to fit that larger engine in quite simply with the numbers
America could make and the spare parts that came with them it meant that if the
Sherman broke down we had a spare you could go and literally get another
Sherman and be in battle the following day stand ready to feed these assembly
lines of defense as with cannon booming and
guns chattering fully ready for front-line action nothing hindered its
progress you

92 thoughts on “The Sherman Story | The Tank Museum

  1. Just as another fact as well.

    the Sherman IS NOT, REPEAT NOT THINLY ARMORED!!!!!

    (all the following information is According to the WWII: Ballistics Armor and Gunnery Book Factoring in the type, Angle, Overmatch, Quality and Flaws of the steel.)
    Here's a calculator infact someone made based off the book.
    https://jscalc.io/calc/2u6dtwLwzxNmqWld
    and here's the book
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery

    The Original M4A1 Sherman cast in 1942 had 51mm of cast at 56 degree's for 95mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.
    (US Cast armor pre-Oct 1943 had small amount of flaws in the steel and Cast is a shade less effective than RHA.)

    Then the M4 Sherman RHA in 1942 had 51mm of RHA at 56 degree's for 100mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC
    (US RHA armor pre-Oct 1943 had Medium amount of flaws in the steel but is RHA.)

    Then in Oct-1943 they fixed the flaws in the Steel and the Large Hatch Sherman came out.

    the M4A1 Sherman Cast Large Hatch Post Oct-1943 had 64mm of Cast at 51 degree's for 116mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.

    the M4A3 Sherman RHA Large Hatch Post Oct-1943 had 64mm of RHA at 47 degree's for 118mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.

    (and if you are thinking, yes the Post Oct 1943 Shermans did indeed have more frontal armor than the Tiger I which was 100mm of FHA at 10degree's for ¬104mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.)
    infact the Post Oct 1943 Shermans we're the 2nd most well-armored Medium of the war from the front and the 5th most overall.

  2. Just as another fact as well.

    the Sherman IS NOT, REPEAT NOT THINLY ARMORED!!!!!

    (all the following information is According to the WWII: Ballistics Armor and Gunnery Book Factoring in the type, Angle, Overmatch, Quality and Flaws of the steel.)
    Here's a calculator infact someone made based off the book.
    https://jscalc.io/calc/2u6dtwLwzxNmqWld
    and here's the book
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery

    The Original M4A1 Sherman cast in 1942 had 51mm of cast at 56 degree's for 95mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.
    (US Cast armor pre-Oct 1943 had small amount of flaws in the steel and Cast is a shade less effective than RHA.)

    Then the M4 Sherman RHA in 1942 had 51mm of RHA at 56 degree's for 100mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC
    (US RHA armor pre-Oct 1943 had Medium amount of flaws in the steel but is RHA.)

    Then in Oct-1943 they fixed the flaws in the Steel and the Large Hatch Sherman came out.

    the M4A1 Sherman Cast Large Hatch Post Oct-1943 had 64mm of Cast at 51 degree's for 116mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.

    the M4A3 Sherman RHA Large Hatch Post Oct-1943 had 64mm of RHA at 47 degree's for 118mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.

    (and if you are thinking, yes the Post Oct 1943 Shermans did indeed have more frontal armor than the Tiger I which was 100mm of FHA at 10degree's for ¬104mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.)
    infact the Post Oct 1943 Shermans we're the 2nd most well-armored Medium of the war from the front and the 5th most overall.

  3. Just as another fact as well.

    (all the following information is According to the WWII: Ballistics Armor and Gunnery Book Factoring in the type, Angle, Overmatch, Quality and Flaws of the steel.)
    Here's a calculator infact someone made based off the book.
    https://jscalc.io/calc/2u6dtwLwzxNmqWld
    and here's the book
    https://www.scribd.com/doc/219173969/WWII-Ballistics-Armor-and-Gunnery

    The Original M4A1 Sherman CHA in 1942 had 51mm of CHA at 56 degree's for 95mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.
    (US CHA armor pre-Oct 1943 had small amount of flaws in the steel and CHA is a shade less effective than RHA.)

    Then the M4 Sherman RHA in 1942 had 51mm of RHA at 56 degree's for 100mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC
    (US RHA armor pre-Oct 1943 had Medium amount of flaws in the steel but is RHA.)

    Then in Oct-1943 they fixed the flaws in the Steel and the Large Hatch Sherman came out.

    the M4A1 Sherman CHA Large Hatch Post Oct-1943 had 64mm of CHA at 51 degree's for 116mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.

    the M4A3 Sherman RHA Large Hatch Post Oct-1943 had 64mm of RHA at 47 degree's for 118mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.

    (and if you are thinking, yes the Post Oct 1943 Shermans did indeed have more frontal armor than the Tiger I which was 100mm of FHA at 10degree's for ¬104mm of effective thickness against 75mm APCBC.)
    infact the Post Oct 1943 Shermans we're the 2nd most well-armored Medium of the war from the front and the 5th most overall.

  4. A story of a solid workhorse of a tank. Decent enough combination of key characteristics, good quality in terms of logistics.
    Individually inferior to mightiest German tanks but what people tend to forget is the fact that Sherman was more of an equivalent of a good old Panzer IV and T-34.

  5. M3 grant…..eh…..really? I thought it was a M3 Lee that comes out first then the M3 Grant
    105……it's a Howitzer…..

  6. Come on Tank Museum, this has to be at least a series of 'tank chats' with David Fletcher, looking at the development from M2/ M3 influence to M4,, right up to the Firefly and Easy 8 and beyond to the Israeli use in M50 and M51 super sherman and others. Please!

  7. @3.48 while true if you cannot hit your target why does it matter? seriously the WWII sabot rounds were completely useless.

  8. I really wonder what the story of that Dutch Sherman is. A remnant of the American 7th Armour division maybe, who lost a lot of Shermans during the Battle of Overloon? That would make it a loaner from the Overloon War Museum.

  9. Don't forget that unlike the tanks of other countries, this one fought in almost every theater of battle in WWII. Can you even imagine a panther attempting to fight in the jungles or volcanic sands?

  10. They built over 49000 of them. My grandfather was a M4 driver during the war. He said when he was in Normandy he knew we would win the war because we had miles of parked tanks and trucks waiting to go into service. You can change tanks like you change socks.

  11. these slowmo moments were painfull to watch XD
    next time get some1 with camera knowledge to film it and dont just use the AUTO option on em

  12. Wow, the single most versatile tank of WWII. The M4 saw service literally everywhere. Europe, Russia, China, Africa, Pacific theatre, etc during WWII. Didn't fare well facing heaver German armor but the Sherman was in reality designed for infantry support. Although the first Sherman light tanks were never originally engineered to knock out enemy tanks and armor. Nevertheless it proved to be a war winning tank due to being mechanically reliable, ease of maintenance, maneuverability and relative speed of 25-30 MPH.

  13. Such a great tank. Too bad Belton Y. Cooper decided to destroy its reputation.

  14. A great little video for a great tank. Can't wait to see what you next choice is for the Diary series, hope its a Sherman of some type.

  15. Great to see these tanks running around together. When can the same thing be done with the Churchills? Admittedly, they won't ever run around, but you know what I mean.

  16. The M4A4 was export only wasn't it? Did any A4's serve in the US army?

    (Also, note the slightly longer rear engine deck on the A4)

  17. you don’t need to specify they’re American tanks

    You just gotta say “the best tanks ever built” and you already know it’s American

  18. Probably just as well they had air superiority, with that high silhouete i think they would be an easy target in open ground.

  19. The Rodney Dangerfield of tanks. While the Tigers and Panthers waited for fuel and spare parts, the Sherman was killing Germans.

  20. Shermans really get a lot of underserved bad rep…….its later versions with 76mm gun it could destroy a Tiger and a Panther from the front, and in its early versions it could destroy everything that was not a Tiger or a Panther (most of the time, you were not fighting Tigers and Panthers anyway). Plus it was fast, had armour as good as its contemporaries and had the best crew confort you could get in WW2 era tank.

  21. Discarding sabot… sure when it actually hit something… which was only achievable at below 500m at best 🙂 Great show and nice to see so many running M4s. If I ever get to visit England I hope it will be during Tankfest.

  22. Great footage of a great tank. For those who grew up hearing them called "Ronsons" which were useless against Tigers and Panthers (not forgetting that US doctrine was for dedicated tank destroyers to fight enemy tanks, not the Sherman) I must add a link to The Chieftains excellent talk regarding American Armour Myths of WWI. He busts a lot of misconceptions with facts and is entertaining in the process. Well worth a watch.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

  23. The Sherman is a proper war-time tank. It wasn't the best tank, it wasn't the cheapest, it wasn't the fastest, it wasn't the most powerful. What it did do was draw on enough of these elements to make it viable for long-term warfare, as well as crew comfort. This is a concept that has been largely forgotten by the modern US military.

  24. 6071 not 671… Diesel Engine.
    76mm Gun was delayed because the first 1000 were manufactured incorrectly. And scrapped.
    76mm isnt 1 mm more then 75mm Willy… You should know better then that. Sigh.

  25. "Let's bolt together some steel plates and add a flimsy gasoline engine and a tiny gun. Then make it so tall that it's easy to hit, then let the infantrymen win the war"…

  26. Awesome ubiquitous vehicle, best tank in WW 2 could fight anywhere, excellent designs can be continuously upgraded over time, the Sherman is an excellent example of that with all the variations. Opinions vary on the best, personally the I think the Firefly, it had the greatest psychological impact on Axis forces in combat, with the possible exception of the Churchill Crocodile.

  27. In the short term which I'm guessing that the Germans were aiming for the Panther definitely took the medal. But for the longer term the Sherman earned it's keep, it fought in every Theater even beyond WW2 and they upgraded it several times over as well as producing many variants. Overall it was a cheap, reliable and adaptable as well as versatile tank, something which I don't think the Soviets could brag about.

  28. Funny the Brit’s, French, and Russians said the Sherman’s were horrible deathtraps but they all wanted them more than their own country built tanks, sorry I should include the U.S. but they built the things and my birth nation Mexico, but I’m a Canadian citizen now and we never said or thought of the Sherman’s as useless or a deathtrap, in fact we loved them they were very durable, easy to drive, kinda roomy (well some of the 7.5cm ones are), very comfortable, and a safe working environment compared to many of it’s competitors (it has the same armor thickness on front of the hull as the renown soviet T34s although slightly less sloped but just as effective especially with -8° of gun depression vs the T34’s -5°) so why so much hate ?

  29. Was great to see them live and in person at Tankfest, was a great day with the sun beating down and the tanks raising noise, fumes, and dust.
    Spent most of this video scanning the crowd trying to see myself. 3:16 and finally it paid off, mini me sitting at the barrier. Immortalised in a Tank Museum video, even if it's as a 3mm tall blob, recognisable only to myself, LOL.

  30. Fear naught! We will cover the Shermans in more details through the Tank Chat series. Having the guest vehicles at TANKFEST simply provided a good opportunity to give a brief overview.

  31. Is the 105MM Sherman from The Netherlands?

    Looking at the numberplate and the flag on the back and the camouflage uniform from it's crew I would say it's Dutch.

  32. Who ever was narrating this needs to freshen up on his US tank production from WW2, the Grant was a British modification of the M3 medium tank nicknamed M3 Lee by the US military and on top of that the name Sherman was a British nickname given to the M4 medium tank

  33. I don't wish to be too nitpicky but the 'M4A2' mentioned was the Fury tank which is an M4A3 with wet ammo storage and the 76mm.

  34. Ah the Sherman. As my WW2 historian friend liked to say– the Sherman is the tank that was literally everywhere, trudging through the Russian steppes, rolling through the European flatlands, treading the stifling tropics of the Pacific isles, the Chinese valleys and scorching heat of the Sahara and so on. It fought in places and climates the Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger and Tiger II could only dream of.

  35. I don't believe in evolution, but their is no doubt the makers of the Sherman Tank evolved that tank tank throughout WW2 and beyond.

  36. BE HONEST IT WAS A TURD , BUT IT WAS EVERYWHERE OK,, BUT SO ARE DOG TURDS,, TO SEND MEN TO WAR IN THEM WAS A WAR CRIME,,THOSE WHO DID IT SHOULD BE DISCREDITED BY HISTORY,,
    I wait for the flak I will get for this statement, but it will bother me about as a Panther crew would when taking on a sherman,,

  37. Was hoping to see an Easy 8. Most people dont know that a Tiger's front armor and the sloped armor on the Sherman were equal in thickness because of it.

  38. I'm right next door to that factory Chrysler built as I type this. It's a fantastically large and impressive structure to see in Warren, Michigan, and gives me a wonderful amount of hometown pride.

  39. The Sherman is an Allied tank, this video tantalizes us about the Sherman and I know the Tank Museum has a lot more to say about the Sherman.

  40. A 90mm Sherman prototype was built, with a Pershing Turret. Sherman, RP Hunnicutt page 212. The 90mm Sherman, requested by The Amour Board. They had concluded Auturm 1943 that Sherman would be the only tank available for Normandy. Basically, follow the British example get our best gun and put it into our best tank. He then goes through the reasons why it was fought against by ordnance (we want Pershing) and Armour Force, ie general McNair (tanks don’t fight tanks, that is artillery and Tank destryor). It is a very interesting analysis a conclusion
    1, The Armour Board fully understood the Tiger and Panther impact, or why want a 90mm Sherman, they have been criticised by Historians
    2. They understood the 76mm was not up to the job or again why want a 90mm Sherman.
    3. The 17 pounder would not have been fitted whilst General McNair lead Armour Force, if he was not prepared to fit the best US Army gun the 90mm. So the narratives around all the 17 pounder reasons are questionable at best.

    In hindsight, what would 1000 of these Super Sherman’s been worth to the American Army in 1944 how many servicemen casualties would have been saved.

  41. The Chrysler Corporation is one of the main reasons that the US kept producing M4's when it was well past it's prime. Why? To maximize profits. If the Army changed to a new and better tank, Chrysler would have to retool their freebie government funded factory. I'm sure there's a money trail directly from Chrysler to certain senators and congressmen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *