The History Channel is guilty of propaganda.

I was watching a special on World War 2 tanks and they were saying that the Sherman tank was a shining piece of American engineering. When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.

Which is certainly why the next tank, which looks like a German tank, was named after Patton.

Also, our current tanks still take from the German design.

So do your cars.

>> ^Entropy001:

Also, our current tanks still take from the German tank design.

Always remember - the history channel is run by Disney

*parody

Adding video to channels (Parody) - requested by ant.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

ha!>> ^hugith:

So do your cars.
>> ^Entropy001:
Also, our current tanks still take from the German tank design.

>> ^Entropy001:
When in reality the Sherman tank was inferior to the German design.
Well, one could argue that it's more of a difference in the underlying philosophy than quality of engineering. German doctrin was based upon the use of what we now refer to as MBTs (Panzer I-V) while the Brits used infantry tanks (Mathilda, Valentine, Churchill, etc) and cruiser tanks (Cruiser, Crusader, Cromwell, etc), and the US troops deployed infantry tanks (Sherman) and TDs (M10, M18, M36). Once you split breakthrough and exploitation or infantry support and anti-tank warfare into separate vehicles, you're bound to end up with vastly different designs that might draw the short straw more often than not if not used properly.


If you include the lack of resources and manpower in particular, Wehrmacht tanks had to be superior individually, because they were doomed to be inferior numerically. Thus, the US could focus on easier and cheaper production. You don't need Zeiss optics and Krupp steel if you simply aim for number superiority. I'd say both design principles fulfilled their respective roles just fine, even though they could hardly have been more different. Simple, easy to maintain and reliable versus the latest in technology.

The Firefly was nice though, 17pdr was a beast.

Or maybe what I wrote is just a load of cockswallow and the German designs were, in fact, simply superior.

That said, this kitty was one hell of an engineering masterpiece. If they hadn't lost access to rare materials, even the transmission might have worked properly and those buggers wouldn't have broken down every 100km.

Still waiting to see the Panther at Koblenz again, last time was a blast.

@radx @Entropy001

I think you're mostly right about the doctrine differences creating design differences. From what I remember from writing papers in college, early in the war US WWII armored doctrine was still mostly based on cavalry tactics. I think people forget the US only directly participated in the war for 4 years, and only a small chunk of that was facing German tanks. There really wasn't a lot of time for redesigns, and the heavier tank designs were often put on the back burner.

In fact, this wikipedia thing says pretty much exactly that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#The_tank_destroyer_doctrine

If you attribute the trade offs made for speed and maneuverability in lieu of armor and firepower to doctrine differences, the Sherman still had a huge design flaw. Narrow treads. Shermans often got stuck in the mud while trying to flank, which neutralized their speed and numbers. Despite the greater mass of most of the German tanks, their wide treads allowed them to operate in terrain that crippled Shermans. Any discussion of Sherman design that doesn't include this problem isn't necessarily propaganda as @Entropy001 suggested, but it's definitely missing something incredibly important.

I wrote a paper years ago that was about how soldiers in the field often modify their equipment. I don't know if any books exist on the subject, but I probably have enough source material to write one if I were so inclined. My paper was only 15 pages, so it focused mostly on the Sherman. There was a section that showed how logs were often strapped to the sides of the tanks to throw down into mud to limit sinking...too bad the narrow track problem was often made worse by crews adding sandbags and other things onto their hulls to protect against HEAT weapons.

Kinda reminds you of under-armored humvees in Iraq now, doesn't it?

You're right about the quality of the Panther design, though...if they never introduced that tank, I bet the Allies never would have had to introduce heavier tanks of their own (like the Pershing and IS-2).

So a comedy clip about the civil war and dinosaurs just turned into a historical debate about the merits and design philosophy of WW2 tanks. Yes, that just happened. Only on freaking Videosift, I swear to the Flying Spagetti Monster.

I'll be over there with the popcorn. -->

The point you just stated is why I love this community SO much.>> ^Lithic:

So a comedy clip about the civil war and dinosaurs just turned into a historical debate about the merits and design philosophy of WW2 tanks. Yes, that just happened. Only on freaking Videosift, I swear to the Flying Spagetti Monster.
I'll be over there with the popcorn. -->

Tags for this video have been changed from 'history channel, death, programming, wkuk, whitest, kids, youi know' to 'history channel, death, programming, wkuk, whitest kids you know' - edited by xxovercastxx

Not nearly enough.
>> ^hugith:

So do your cars.
>> ^Entropy001:
Also, our current tanks still take from the German tank design.

@mgittle

Blimey, I never realized how narrow the M4A1s treads were. Incidently, they only had an M4A3 at Münster tank museum and that version has considerably wider tracks than the PIV. Even the PV's tracks are only slightly wider, despite the additional 10t of steel. Thanks for the info.

The History Channel is to history what baconnaise is to condiments.

I was trying (but have failed) to find a War Nerd column (highly recommended reading) on the subject of american military revisionism in WW2. The Sherman "makeover" as actually being a really nice tank and yadayadayada was part of a larger jingoistic effort during the start of the current desert wars. Remember those days of red, white and blue fever? Wonder if the History channel will make a doc on that...

As for the Sherman, you just need to look at it. I would call it a VW Beetle with a turret mounted on top, but that would be insulting a fine car.

The truth of course is that the real WW2 was fought on the eastern front and the might of the Wehrmacht was only halted by rivers of Russian blood.

"The truth of course is that the real WW2 was fought on the eastern front and the might of the Wehrmacht was only halted by rivers of Russian blood."

So true.

Say what you like about those Nazi's, they build some outstanding equipment. The FW190 is still one of my favourites.

And as a counterpoint, the Allied pilots who flew their Hurricanes and Spitfires against the might of such awesome machines in the Battle of Britain show that the man is, sometimes, far more important than the mount he rides. ; )

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by theali.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*length=6:06

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 6:06 - length declared by geo321.