Jump to content


M4 Sherman Tank - Historically, A Total Death Trap - VIDEO


  • Please log in to reply
407 replies to this topic

Sink_Stuff #1 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:28

    Captain

  • Players
  • 15099 battles
  • 1,461
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011


1Sherman #2 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 5303 battles
  • 3,338
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

I see your Wehraboo video and I counter with a Chieftain video: https://www.youtube....h?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Game, set, match. I win.



Strike_Witch_Tomoko #3 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 15574 battles
  • 12,548
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View Post1Sherman, on Jun 08 2016 - 13:33, said:

I see your Wehraboo video and I counter with a Chieftain video:

 

Game, set, match. I win.

 

^ this

 

as much as i say WG is russian biased(totally opinionated i know)

 

WG is alot more reliable than history channel.....kinda sad

 



WulfeHound #4 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

I'm not even going to watch that trainwreck of a video.

 

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Oct 17 2014 - 19:23, said:

 Death Traps is not a reliable source. Don't cite it. Or the History Channel show based on it.

 

 



Flarvin #5 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 54437 battles
  • 16,405
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View Post1Sherman, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:33, said:

I see your Wehraboo video and I counter with a Chieftain video: https://www.youtube....h?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Game, set, match. I win.

 

Chieftain is but one 'expert' on the subject.

 

Basing your opinion on just his claims is just as bad as basing your opinion on just the history channels claim. 



WulfeHound #6 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:43

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:42, said:

 

Chieftain is but one 'expert' on the subject.

 

Basing your opinion on just his claims is just as bad as basing your opinion on just the history channels claim. 

 

Except what Chieftain claims is backed up by data, archival documents, and other armor historians.

RunninKurt #7 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:47

    Captain

  • Players
  • 19642 battles
  • 1,872
  • [POSHY] POSHY
  • Member since:
    01-07-2012
History channel is not the best source for accurate information.

Flarvin #8 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 54437 battles
  • 16,405
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:43, said:

 

Except what Chieftain claims is backed up by data, archival documents, and other armor historians.

 

So are the other claims. 



blackfalconjc #9 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:56

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7519 battles
  • 1,996
  • [WW2AR] WW2AR
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:43, said:

 

Except what Chieftain claims is backed up by data, archival documents, and other armor historians.

 

I would much rather trust the word of a former tanker who is also a historian than a random historian who thinks they know what it meant to be a tanker... Also, memories fade and or become embellished over time, so pointing out that "all Shermans were death traps", is not reliably taking in all the fact. 

 

Yes, US Shermans had a number of short comings that made them unique. They also were a very successful tank design that saw combat (in updated forms) until the late 1960's. Yes, German tanks were formidable as well... But they weren't exactly the impregnable fortresses everyone paints them to be... Even Russian tanks suffered losses! (Go figure!). To the crews manning them, driving around in a steel beast made them feel safer, yet more vulnerable then ever as a giant metal pillbox on wheels has a tendency to attract incoming enemy fire.

 

M4 Sherman bad day at the Office:

 

Panther caught an ISU-152 round...

 

Russian Bias!



Doomslinger #10 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 21:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 72273 battles
  • 5,767
  • Member since:
    07-29-2012
It was designed to be an infantry support tank at that time but found itself fighting against tanks.  They thought at that time the best way to kill enemy tanks would be with anti-tank weapons, bazookas, piats and anti-tank guns.  Later in the war they upgraded the sherman because the 75 mm gun was mainly an infantry support gun and had more explosive charge in it that worked well vs infantry but had low penetraton and could not punch through thick tank armor very well.  They started building tank destroyers later in the war that were designed to kill enemy tanks and used speed and sneakyness to avoid getting hit in return.  Tank on tank action was something they wanted to avoid.

WulfeHound #11 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:00

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:47, said:

 

So are the other claims. 

 

So what Belton Cooper claims in his book is backed up by archival documents? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:56, said:

 

I would much rather trust the word of a former tanker who is also a historian than a random historian who thinks they know what it meant to be a tanker... Also, memories fade and or become embellished over time, so pointing out that "all Shermans were death traps", is not reliably taking in all the fact. 

 

Yes, US Shermans had a number of short comings that made them unique. They also were a very successful tank design that saw combat (in updated forms) until the late 1960's. Yes, German tanks were formidable as well... But they weren't exactly the impregnable fortresses everyone paints them to be... Even Russian tanks suffered losses! (Go figure!). To the crews manning them, driving around in a steel beast made them feel safer, yet more vulnerable then ever as a giant metal pillbox on wheels has a tendency to attract incoming enemy fire.

 

 

Belton Cooper was not a tanker, he was a maintenance officer. He did not drive the tanks, he did not operate them. He is also not a historian. While his book is interesting, it is not a historical work in any way, shape, or form. It is a memoir, one filled with misinformation and often outright lies


Edited by WulfeHound, Jun 08 2016 - 22:08.


WulfeHound #12 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:06

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostDoomslinger, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:58, said:

It was designed to be an infantry support tank at that time but found itself fighting against tanks.  They thought at that time the best way to kill enemy tanks would be with anti-tank weapons, bazookas, piats and anti-tank guns.  Later in the war they upgraded the sherman because the 75 mm gun was mainly an infantry support gun and had more explosive charge in it that worked well vs infantry but had low penetraton and could not punch through thick tank armor very well.  They started building tank destroyers later in the war that were designed to kill enemy tanks and used speed and sneakyness to avoid getting hit in return.  Tank on tank action was something they wanted to avoid.

 

Read FM 17-33:

Block Quote

 Tank vs Tank Action (see FM 17-10) --

Attacking tanks frequently encounter hostile tank units unexpectedly. At other times they may be required to attack hostile tanks deliberately in order to break up an attack or counterattack.

 

 



Arsenal_destroyer #13 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:07

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 2998 battles
  • 695
  • Member since:
    05-14-2015
When history channel stopped doing history and started dumas shows like Americn Pickers I kinda figured they weren't interested in historical academia, rather they were interested in story telling, What a waste of a channel. 1950s and 60s era movies have more historical accuracy than History Channel HD.

Edited by Arsenal_destroyer, Jun 08 2016 - 22:08.


Pipinghot #14 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 25960 battles
  • 10,306
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    11-20-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 08 2016 - 15:42, said:

Chieftain is but one 'expert' on the subject.

 

Basing your opinion on just his claims is just as bad as basing your opinion on just the history channels claim. 

The Chieftan is more reliable than the History Channel, he does a little thing they call "research". It's been years since it deserved to even have the word "History" in their name, it should be called the un-History Channel.



charley2222 #15 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:13

    Captain

  • Players
  • 29538 battles
  • 1,136
  • Member since:
    09-27-2013

yea the m4 is a real piece of garbage (the  plate of butter) all tank expert know this  lol

but the fat slow churchill not better lol


Edited by charley2222, Jun 08 2016 - 22:15.


WulfeHound #16 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View Postcharley2222, on Jun 08 2016 - 16:13, said:

yea the m4 is a real piece of garbage (the  plate of butter) all tank expert know this  lol

but the fat slow churchill not better lol

 

Incorrect on the Sherman part. Churchills were quite decent heavy tanks, even with the lower firepower compared to other heavies.

RedBaronK #17 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 41347 battles
  • 2,997
  • [MAIDS] MAIDS
  • Member since:
    11-26-2012
Creighton Abrams had unicum stats in his M4 during the war right? 

Flarvin #18 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 54437 battles
  • 16,405
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

View PostWulfeHound, on Jun 08 2016 - 16:00, said:

 

So what Belton Cooper claims in his book is backed up by archival documents? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

Belton Cooper was not a tanker, he was a maintenance officer. He did not drive the tanks, he did not operate them. He is also not a historian. While his book is interesting, it is not a historical work in any way, shape, or form. It is a memoir, one filled with misinformation and often outright lies

 

I don't have a dog in this fight. I can careless what you or anyone thinks of the M4. 

 

But I do know that basing anything on one 'experts' research is foolish. I have been reading about history since the 1970's, and have encountered multiple opinions backed by historical documents and facts.

 

So acting like one 'expert's' claims is how it was is unwise. Which is the only thing I was getting at in my first comment. Because the post I commented on acted like Chieftain's claims was the final say. 

 

 



WulfeHound #19 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 12919 battles
  • 26,179
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    04-03-2011

View PostFlarvin, on Jun 08 2016 - 16:20, said:

 

I don't have a dog in this fight. I can careless what you or anyone thinks of the M4. 

 

But I do know that basing anything on one 'experts' research is foolish. I have been reading about history since the 1970's, and have encountered multiple opinions backed by historical documents and facts.

 

So acting like one 'expert's' claims is how it was is unwise. Which is the only thing I was getting at in my first comment. Because the post I commented on acted like Chieftain's claims was the final say. 

 

 

 

Okay, I can see your point.

Redshirt4Life #20 Posted Jun 08 2016 - 22:30

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 5886 battles
  • 1,347
  • Member since:
    07-17-2015
History channel is garbage. not a good source of facts.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users