Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Sherman Death Trap: Veterans vs Historians" video.

  1. And the ammo storage thing is probably isn't true. I heard the theory it was actually because of British tankers storing their ammo everywhere it could start a fire when hit.
    4
  2. And they neglect the fact that even if those problems did exist they were quick to fix them. They added wet ammo storage for the Sherman and the belly hatch was there too. The tankers got back into the things because it was tank with good survivability.
    2
  3. Nah it probably had something to do with the ghost writer.
    1
  4. That and how well it follows the tenets of tank design. Mobility Protection and Firepower. Going by this, the M4 is an almost perfect balance of all 3 for the time.
    1
  5. Because it was a non-issue. The reason that nickname existed has been traced to Brits who didn't store their ammo.
    1
  6. There was a variant of the M4A1 with a 76mm gun but the real difference was that used a cast hull instead of the wielded hull of the M4. Most US designations of the time were designated variants form changed such as that. The Canadian Ram was even given a M4 designation.
    1
  7. Nope.
    1
  8. Except the Sherman actually could if it had to because it was less likely to break down than either the Panther or the Tiger. And you aren't even making the right comparison as the Tiger and Panther are comparable to the Sherman the Panzer IV is and the Sherman is better.
    1
  9. The experience he had is obviously biased by him being around mostly destroyed Shermans rather than functioning ones. I would take every he said with a grain of salt as a result. Also the United States did come up with come up with betters fighters by not making entirely new designs but consistently improving what they had. The amount of times they could upgrade their designs and the combat records speak for themselves. American designs were better.
    1
  10.  marsey appreciator  There is thing called survivorship bias which means we take the word of survivors rather than the dead men. Dead Men tell no tales including how much deadlier their tanks were compared to survivors.
    1
  11. Compare a Sherman to a Tiger is like comparing a 747 to a Concorde.
    1
  12.  @shatbad2960  Except no they wouldn't have held Europe. Once the US entered the war they would still have a nation they couldn't touch with a much larger and more powerful industrial base to deal with.
    1
  13.  @allangibson2408  Eh the armor wasn't exactly better and the T-34-85 would have a word about better everything.
    1
  14.  @allangibson2408  The Type 97 Chi-Ha had a maximum thickness of 25mm while the Bob Semple only had 12.7mm max. Also the Japanese vehicles weren't glorified tankettes like the Bob Semple.
    1
  15.  @allangibson2408  Or you know just wait for it run out of fuel or the suspension to fail because they didn't get their regular maintanence.
    1
  16.  @scottsuttan2123  He didn't he was World War II veteran just a veteran.
    1
  17. Well as the Chieftan put it no GI was going to spend the time to count the roadwheels to figure out which tank they were fighting.
    1
  18. Except not really it was better than the Panzer and could and did frequently beat tanks like the Tiger.
    1
  19.  @porksterbob  They actually did. The M3 Grant was the British variant of the M3 medium tank which lacked the cupola, and a new radio in the turret. The M3 used by the US was dubbed the Lee after Robert E. Lee. And the M36 Jackson Tank Destroyer the M3/M5 Stuart and were named named for Confederate Generals Stonewall Jackson and Jeb Stuart.
    1
  20. Well by modern standards it can be seen as MBT similar to the T-34 which combined the infantry and calvary tank roles into one vehicle which would make it an MBT by the modern definition. There is also a tendecy to retroactively add designations for example after NATO started adopting Assault Rifles in the 70s they made the definition battle rifle for the full-size cartridge rifles they were replacing along some older rifles like the M1 Garand.
    1
  21.  @joewelch4933  Except the United States didn't have any major logistical constraints. They were so good at wartime production they had to slow things down because the war would end soon,
    1
  22. Not really. Most tanks of the time had a belly hatch for just that situation. Most modern tanks lack them though due the fact they reduce the structural integrity of the bottom hole.
    1
  23.  @jrd33  Except not really. US Armor doctrine of the time had tanks be infantry support tank destroyers were for fighting tanks
    1
  24.  @Jpdt19  Not really because before the War you had two types of tanks infantry tanks like the Sherman made for infantry support and Calvary tanks meant to destroy enemy tanks. US doctrine had all tanks be infantry tank while Tank Destroyers filled the calvary tank role.
    1
  25.  @jrd33  that is called evolving designs
    1
  26. Except I wouldn't say the Multibank is better than the radial engine. And it didn't armor piercing as it was made for infantry support.
    1
  27.  @General_Griffin  They weren't left over the tanks were sold to them by France often modified with newer guns.
    1
  28.  @cdjhyoung  The point about original turrets only says the Sherman is a good design. You could effectively mount guns on the thing the designer never intended and the design was used in just about military role.
    1