The whole Sherman debate has been around forever and it almost always fails to take into consideration that no weapons platform exists in a vacuum.

By that I mean that it didn't matter that the Sherman was inferior to most German tanks because the Sherman outnumbered them at least 4:1, the US had a far better logistical situation (ie gas and spare parts) and the US had near total air superiority from D-Day onwards.

I'll watch that later,thanks KraziKanuk.I've watched a lot of this guys videos,he does a lot of stuff for Wargaming.

Nick Moran is a good guy. Also funny and articulate.

Quantity over quality will win a war of attrition. Time is the variable.

Don't forget that the Sherman was well suited for transport by ship. The Germans, if they had the military moxie to cross the Atlantic, would find that Tigers would cause major problems in transport by sea in quantity.

It was fast, fit on European roads quite well (including bridges), flexible in use (how many variants were there, as opposed to what the Germans fielded?), and could hold its own against German armor when working as a team. Shermans were built to be repaired in field depots - German tanks were too complex for rapid turn around.

Hell, the Soviets used Shermans to great effect on what should have been the home field advantage for Panzers - the steppes.

Cold didn't stop the Shermans; heat didn't stop the Shermans. And anybody could be trained quickly to man and work on them.

very interesting presentation... thanks for posting this. do I win some nerd points for watching the whole thing?

Since this is all before the MBT concept, when there are so many specialist vehicles and variants of production batches, and there is so much improvisation of tactics and designs, of course there are going to be all kinds of conclusions supported by some kind of evidence- there's too many variables to consider so there is always naturally some kinds of evidence that both supports and refutes some conclusion.

Even whether some of these points are really myths is a debate in itself to anyone but enthusiasts. Generally, most people aren't even aware of the kinds of myths that distinguish whether a Sherman is an Easy 8 model, that tends to a be a fine distinction for a more esoteric discussion rather than a broad sort of statement about American tanks generally, such as a discussion about retrospectively defining what a 'heavy tank' or a 'medium tank' was- those kinds of definitions can be both useful and problematic at the same time .

Excellent find
Really enjoyed watching it
I am a armour enthusiast myself and believed some of the myths as facts.
The myth surrounding Sherman's being referred to as Ronsons being one
As good as the talk was,
I enjoy listening to the vets from WW2 some of the experience's there harrowing to listen too though
The one that got to me was the captain who's job it was to oversee the recovery of damaged Sherman's.
His men sometimes used shovels to recover the fallen service men from the inside the tanks turret
They would then hose the inside, patch up the tank and send it back in to the field.
No mater how hard he tried not to the tears keep running down his face.
So many young men, he just kept shaking his head.
I would say he has been haunted most of his life by what he seen.

There was a good topic about this not so long ago in the History section of Reddit...

Most of the people were implying the Sherman was superior or competition for German armor up and until the Panzer IV - its where the Panther and heavier pieces that had a far more noticeable tactical presence.

With regards to tactical engagements, the tactical edge really matters for little when it could no longer be tied into a combined-arms team.

By the end of 1943 German armor was attacking without the superb co-ordination they had shown with air and artillery forces, in certain areas of Southern France in September 1944, they were even attacking without effective anti-air or reconnaissance support; a deadly necessity for a tired army. When holding a relatively static front, such as in Normandy, this inferiority in fighting a battle of maneuver was slow to manifest, thereafter, it was plainly evident.

Performance of the Sherman increased favorably as room to maneuver and defensive cohesion was respectively gained and lost in the ETO. In North Africa, the M4 was undeniably superior, to its erstwhile rivals. British tank losses often remained high however, by the German's wise tactical choice to avoid 'armor-on-armor' battles (they simply did not have the numbers to waste manouver forces in such a manner). Repeated baiting of British armored units, often inadequately supported, into high-velocity anti-tank guns is worth a discussion in and of itself.

The Sherman's superiority over the Panzer IV isn't clear-cut, but there's a case for it. In terms of firepower it goes clearly to the Panzer IV, in terms of crew comfort, equal. In terms of strategic range and endurance, narrowly to the Sherman - both tanks were impressive in this regard. Gunnery optics generally is considered superior in German models, but optics for situational awareness - such as periscopes, hatches, cupola peeps, etc., definitely were aplenty and superior on the Shermans, especially the quintessential M4A3. The fact remains the Sherman had more eyes looking at any one time than its counterpart - and he who acquires targets first at combat range often wins, irrespective of technical details.

I'll let a man infinitely more learned then me wrap this up, I quote:

Both the light and medium tanks were fully developed, proven designs with good mobility and a favorable power-to-weight ratio and were especially prized for their mechanical reliability. However the general purpose 75-mm guns carried by most M-4s....were outclassed by the high-velocity [calibers] found on the German tanks of the day. Nonetheless, through superior teamwork [with all arms] and tactical mobility...the 4th Armored Division established a favorable kill ratio over German armor"

Dr. Gabel, Christopher R. The 4th [US] Armored Division in the Encirclement of Nancy (page 2) - My emphasis added

I just think its noteworthy that Dr. Gabel goes out of his way to fail to mention armor. Its a deliberate and correct omission for what is an article on a battle of rapid movement and delivery of firepower.

Just watched the whole video and throughout the entire video I kept wondering where the speaker grew up because I found his accent to be somewhat unique.

Ah, just looked up his bio and he's originally from Dublin, Ireland.

I thought you had the max points already?

Thank you, Nils!



I've an official bio up?

Nobody tells me anything... *grumbles*

The man himself?

Be interesting to hear his opinion of War Thunder!

Wow. What a nice surprise.

go raibh mile maith agat 3 star.
I really enjoyed your talk

Great talk, really resonated as a WT player.

Great factoids:

- The number of times US Tanks met a Tiger in WWII: 3 (once while they were being loaded on a train).

- The winner of any fight between a Sherman and a Panther or Tiger was whoever fired first...because if you've just been shot you are having a significant emotional event.

- Tactical air did not have any practical success in killing tanks.

Not sure what WoT is like, but WT in no way represents historical realities even in sim battle mode, and no one should really expect it to. How much fun would the game be if you spent all those hours grinding your way to a Tiger or Panther, only for it to break down every time you started a match? Of course, they could limit the number of Tigers/Panthers/IS2s/IS3s in a battle, but then you'd be waiting and waiting for your turn to give your heavy tank a trundle: again, not much fun.

The discussion of AT guns vs tanks in tank killing was also interesting. What I'd love to see in WT is some AT guns. I doubt anyone would grind for them, but would be fun to get them as a bonus.

I'd love to see the ability for the player to place/dig in an AT position or two to defend a base, they would also be good targets for air support.

The comment on tactical air was also insightful. In WT when I get airborne, I am lucky to get a single tank kill (even though I am an experienced sim pilot) because I am so unsure of who is friend and who is foe. I always have to make one pass to identify the target and a second pass to try to hit it, by which time it has usually disappeared or I have been shot down! At 300 mph a moving tank in rough terrain is a ridiculously small target and in that game, most air ground kills happen just after game start when the tanks are leaving their spawn, or when they are on an enemy base trying to capture it.

Anyway, thanks for posting!

H

I guess that doesn't apply to Hans Ulrich Rudel who had 519 confirmed tank kills flying the JU-87?