Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Imperial War Museums" channel.

That and the complainers were unaware of the shortcomings of their enemy’s vehicles. When you barely encounter Panthers or Tigers it is easy to buy the belief they are prefect tanks even when their crews are cursing the designers who made a tank where issuing a spare suspension was seen as the best solution to fixing its faults.
45
I would say it is the poster child of open design architecture. The sheer amount of variants made using different guns and engines etc are impressive.
36
@lyndoncmp5751 The Panzer IV had far fewer engines and guns installed over its service life compared to the M4.
24
@Wub-rv9xx And reliability trumps all. I don’t care how mobile a tank is on paper if it breaks down more than celebrity marriages you have a bad tank.
13
@ Aerial superiority is a part of logistics. It isn’t merely about having the supplies but the ability to get them where they need to go. Aerial superiority is a part of that with air cover particularly being vital for airdropping supplies as was done during the Siege of Bastogne. Not to mention logistics isn’t something that air superiority alone can make or break. It is a large combination of factors. After all air superiority itself requires logistics to achieve to begin with.
9
To be fair the Sherman also has to be loaded onto cranes for transport overseas. That is why you have the hooks on the hull.
8
And that is why we won. The Sherman was the king of logistics. Most tanks these days follow its example of using the same basic tank for every armored vehicle role you could conceive of.
6
@manilajohn0182 Except even Eisenhower himself believe that logistics won the war. He said the three war winning vehicles were the Jeep, C-47 Skytrain and Higgin Boats.
5
@ Transporting personnel is another aspect of logistics. Remember Operation Sea Lion never happened because the Germans couldn’t transport their soldiers across the channel. And Eisenhower said without the Higgins boats they wouldn’t have won the war. Also nice you cherry pick the ETO when Eisenhower almost the Atomic that wasn’t deployed there.
5
@manilajohn0182 First their fleet of transportation craft were inadequate for the task of invading the UK. Second even with air power they would have needed to have taken out the Royal Navy to secure the English Channel. Third C-47 was used a cargo aircraft in every theater and was particularly notable for its use in this role during the Ardennes Offensive. And no they had alternatives in the CBI that were used including the large C-46 Commando. Finally Higgins boats were to transport cargo it could carry jeeps straight onto the beaches or 8,100 pounds of cargo.
5
@DD-qw4fz they didn’t. The Centurion (designed during the war entered service after it ended) had the requirements to fit on Queen Mary Trailers and British train cars dropped with the plan being to make new transportation vehicles for the tank. The Germans put heavy amount of rare metals like copper and nickel into their tanks like the Tiger even when they were short on those metals latter in the war leading to subpar armor that shattered against hits it was designed to resist. The German and Soviet heavy tanks were also designed without considering that it was too heavy for most bridges to support. Crane capacity was also never considered important for the European powers as they were mostly fighting on the mainland while the US was a continent away from the fighting. This is highlighted by how the US needed to remove the turret of a captured Tiger (which currently resides at the US Armor Museum in Fort Moore, GA) to get it off the ship. The Sherman could be lifted by crane fully assembled.
4
@no1DdC I would more important is the versatility of the Sherman. There were Sherman variants for every role you needed from tank destroyers to to armored recovery vehicles. There is a level of logistical standardization with the M4 that is truly impressive particularly for the time.
3
@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont The Sherman had good protection. The crew could survive even if the tank was knocked out of action. The armor was good enough for its job. It wasn’t mean to protect against Panthers or Tigers which could also kill the vaunted the T-34. Not to mention the Sherman had the highest velocity gun the allies mounted on a tank with its Firefly variant.
3
I am personally more fond of the Ford GAA. Just because of its cool history and heritage to the excellent Merlin.
3
@AquilaGuard That is because they look at the wrong stats. Reliability and range are just as important as the iron triangle.
3
@re1010 You forget two other big ones. Logistics and reliability. The Panzer IV was but the 7.5 cm KwK 40 made it front heavy which reduced its reliability. The Sherman didn’t have that issue with its guns. Also the parts were successfully standardized on the M4. It was once commented the only you never saw in an American factory was a vice because it wasn’t needed. It was needed in German factories as they built with a level of craftsmanship that was superfluous.
3
@lyndoncmp5751 It did Italy’s were made using outdated construction methods and were not made for fighting in the battlefields of World War II. The Japanese were so bad that machine gun fire could penetrate their armor and outside of the Panzer III and IV, the German designs were unreliable or under armed.
2
Not really. There were two roles for tanks in the interwar period. You had what were called infantry tanks by the British which broke through enemies and raised hell while supporting the infantry and crusier tanks that were faster and designed to kill other tanks. Tank Destroyers were designed for a role that cruiser tanks filled in other nations.
2
@MarquisVincentBissetdeGramont Most historians actually believe the war was doomed from the very beginning as only even dumber moves accounting for Germany’s early successes.
1
@lyndoncmp5751 And how Panthers were deployed vs Shermans? And who won in the end? It sounds bad until you take into account the production figures of both tanks and tactical doctrine.
1
@lyndoncmp5751 But how many Panthers were in the Ardennes? And how many Shermana?
1
@ No the father of MBTs would be the Centurion the first universal tank.
1
I know it is said that protection, mobility and firepower are the most important parts of tank design, but I think the Sherman highlights the importance of reliability and versatility as major pillars. The Sherman’s design is a masterclass in making an open vehicle design.
1
@ The Tank Destroyers were independent units like the cruiser tanks used in other armies. As for my sources there are the tanks themselves. The British helpfully designated which tanks they considered infantry tanks and which were cruiser tanks. The cruiser tanks like the Crusader lean toward higher speeds and less armor like American tank destroyers.
1
@ You forget Cruiser tanks have the same role of engaging enemy tanks.
1