Comments by "David Himmelsbach" (@davidhimmelsbach557) on "Panzer IV vs. Sherman" video.

The story is not tank versus tank -- its tank divisions versus tank divisions. The Germans just got mobbed. They discovered that -- all too often -- they were sending Mark IV platoons against battalions of M4 Shermans. Even the Panther came off worst against American tank divisions. Sherman crews could almost always survive tank destruction. See the Chieftain for why. In a T-34 only the commander had a chance. The Mark IV and Panther were in between. Their frontal armor was of no import -- usually -- as they were being shot from the flank, time and again. Even the 75mm Sherman gun could kill both with a flank shot. Because there were so many Shermans -- someone was always in a flanking position -- usually. Famously, the 2nd Armored destroyed the 2nd Panzer in the Bulge -- with a flanking ambush. And their targets were Panthers.
1
@MAAAAAAAAAA123 The American Army version is that they rolled straight into a tank 'kill box.' And yes, they were pretty much on fumes. But, they weren't parked -- waiting for fuel trucks to come up. During the offensive, the Krauts had so clogged the roads that fuel trucks were blocked from getting to the front units. Famously, the 2nd SS was stopped for two-days straight -- waiting for fuel. The road chaos was just epic -- as the roads were wholly unsuitable for winter tank warfare. The crappy road net was the primary reason that the French Army was caught off guard in 1940. That offensive worked because the weather was favorable. In December '44, trucks and tanks were skidding on ice -- all too often. And then it snowed, too.
1
During the Campaign, it was NEVER a case of one Mark IV fighting against one Sherman. Instead the fight was between a platoon of Mark IV -- typically just four-tanks -- the Germans never could keep their numbers up -- and two-companies of Shermans. Yes, the battlefield was THAT unbalanced. The only place where one has approximate equality is in video gaming. In WWII, the Germans went from a staggering tactical advantage -- lots of panzers right in the mix deciding the issue ('39-'42) -- to a horrific inferiority -- to where the panzers were reduced to sniping. ('44-'45) The latter is why the Stug III became such a huge production run.
1
@muhammadnursyahmi9440 By that time, all of Germany's enemies were out producing her across the entire weapons spectrum. What tends to be lost with the latest generation is that tanks were hugely destroyed by anti-tank guns. (PAK in German) They were NOT usually destroyed by other tanks. Why ? AMBUSH ! Anti-tank guns practically didn't exist in 1940. Tanks were being stopped by direct fire artillery as often as not. By 1941 anti-tank/PAK were in major production. These puppies were especially designed for ambushes as they were tiny by comparison to what was to come. Starting with 37mm doorknockers -- the Krauts moved to 50mm; then 75mm, then 88mm 'barndoors' ( the Big Gun with a split tail carriage, usually termed PAK 43/41) then 128mm (!) [ The last was a one-of-a-kind. It was used to defend the Seelow Heights. directly East of Berlin. There was no hiding it. ] The 75mm weapons were the last to be commonly used in ambush. Taken all together, the Panzer Blitz could never be what it was once these weapons were being cranked out like Chicklets. When Hitler sent the 6th SS Panzer Army into Hungary, its advance caused the Soviets to send scads of anti-tank guns...FIRST. They had them ready-to-hand... just behind the front. So ended Adolf's last gasp in the East. That 128mm rifle survived the war -- apparently -- as the Soviets used it to test their next generation of main battle tanks; something apparent from their own records of such events.
1