A big thank you to our dear friends over at Wargaming for supporting us! Play World of Tanks using this promo code to claim lots of juicy rewards: tanks.ly/3WfhTwz Promo rewards include: - Cromwell B (tier 6) British premium medium tank - 250k credits - 7 days premium access - 3 rental tanks for 10 battles each: Tiger 131 (Tier 6), T78 (Tier 6), Type 64 (Tier 6) The promo code is only for players who register for the first time on the Wargaming portal.

@pyeitme508

10 ай бұрын

LOL!

@DarkElfDiva

10 ай бұрын

A big thank you to MY dear friends over at SponsorBlock for automatically skipping your sponsored segment!

@klein648

10 ай бұрын

You missed the opportunity to write tank you!

@carrott36

10 ай бұрын

What negative trait put the Firefly below the Sherman, besides the sideways gun and hole in the back for the radio?

@Partyboy200

10 ай бұрын

Why does it pain you to say the sherman was the best overall?

I completely disagree. The tankiest tank of them all is the almighty and undefeated Bob Semple Tank. There has never been a more menacing armored piece of weaponary ever in the battlefield.

@rollolol6053

10 ай бұрын

Menacing for its crew, that is

@lurch8111

10 ай бұрын

Yup Japan never attacked New Zeland

@nadersaid2215

10 ай бұрын

I love only using that tank in hoi4!

@joshuabessire9169

10 ай бұрын

I have a tin shed in my backyard, and have never once lost to a panzer. 0-0 is still a perfect record.

@jonrunargislason1884

10 ай бұрын

In true faction the Bob Semple tank didn't lose one single encounter in the second world war... And that is a hard fact for yaaas right there

Most of these heavier tanks were developed based on the assumption that their enemies were also developing heavier vehicles. This is why the Tiger showed up less than a year after the T-34 was first encountered - it wasn't a response to a specific Tank, it was already in development.

@longhairdontcare122

10 ай бұрын

The factory of War thing is the only real edge the ccp has over the west. Westerns need start building shit again.

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

most heavy tanks were designed with this in mind, but the tiger was designed to breakthrough heavily fortified bunker lines like the maginot line.

@petar658

10 ай бұрын

No, T-34 was already in use in 1941, and Tiget came in 1943.

@jordansmith4040

10 ай бұрын

@petar658 Tiger 1 was first operational in september 1942. Production started in July 1942.

04:42 it wasn't Stalins decision to call the IS tanks after him, the engineer for the IS-1(before it was called that ofc) was quite paranoid (understandably) so he made the decision to make sure he'd be in Stalins favor.

@canadianoctopus1479

10 ай бұрын

Are you referring to the to the proto-type of the IS-1, KV-85?

@SemoventeDa

10 ай бұрын

@@canadianoctopus1479 probably he was referring to the IS-1, the KV-85 was a stopgap produced until IS tanks were fielded and ready to be used. To be quick, the IS-1 and the KV-85 are two different tanks.

@wolf_7479

10 ай бұрын

@@canadianoctopus1479 KV-13. Engineer behind that one then turned it into IS-1 according to Peter Samsonov (aka Tank Archives)

@thecommunistdoggo1008

10 ай бұрын

You're not paranoid if the dictator really is out to get everyone

@canadianoctopus1479

10 ай бұрын

@@wolf_7479 Okay

One minor correction: the Maus couldn't ford under its own power. It would need to he connected to another Maus via electrical lines so that the 2nd Maus would provide the necessary power to run the electric motors of the 1st Maus.

@Tom-nx6ev

10 ай бұрын

As one does

@MrFantocan

10 ай бұрын

So, it wasn't even water proof? Hitler sure was just a child playing at war.

@dylanking6960

10 ай бұрын

late war German engineering is a coke-fueled fever dream

@AmericaIsACountry

10 ай бұрын

🤓

@TraitorousHomeworlder

10 ай бұрын

@@AmericaIsACountry Woosh.

Mm yes, metal battle cans

@TheEstrangedMarketSocialist

10 ай бұрын

This will be the top comment That isn’t pinned

@driffbro3380

10 ай бұрын

Ah yes, the angry bulldozer with a cannon. (Edited big gun to cannon.)

@Zimbobroke

10 ай бұрын

with the funny pew pew that sometimes goes boom boom

@onewhovlogs

10 ай бұрын

Land submarines

@DeadSpectre329

10 ай бұрын

Combat Coffins?

The Panzer IV is the unsung workhorse of the Wehrmacht. It was produced from beginning to end with many upgrades.

@parodyclip36

10 ай бұрын

True but also not true, what about the Stug III ? It certainly is the best thing Germans could field (from a ratio standpoint)

@trijalupamungkas3808

10 ай бұрын

​@@parodyclip36stug III is tank destroyer or assalut gun Not a tank

@parodyclip36

10 ай бұрын

@@trijalupamungkas3808 "The Panzer IV is the unsung workhorse of the Wechmacht" and where exactly in this sentence did it exclude assault guns or TD's ?

@conorbyrne7474

10 ай бұрын

@@trijalupamungkas3808 The Stug was the most successful german tank of the war by many metrics.

@conorbyrne7474

10 ай бұрын

Important to note they were still very expensive to produce compared with similar allied medium tanks

Sherman tank is so underrated. People think its plain and boring. But it was so good at what it was designed for. It was built to a high quality, yet produced in huge numbers. The Sherman was easily maintained, repaired, and upgraded into many different variants. It was just a good, all-around tank.

@AHappyCub

10 ай бұрын

Not only is it THE best tank of WW2, it's also easily modified to serve any task, and survivable AF to boot

@spitfire3003

10 ай бұрын

While the Sherman is underrated i feel like the T34 is still a bit overrated even through the T34 was probably one of the worst tanks ever made

@oscarchoy9469

10 ай бұрын

​@@spitfire3003 well TBF the t 34 was a ridiculously cheap tank due to the it's unreliability as the Soviets cut corners on everything in it to save time and money and it still can server its purpose as a tank

@positiveenergy5004

10 ай бұрын

I guess kv-1, tiger 1, was superior at the time of release, bringing a lot of headache to enemies. Is-3 is also great, looks very futuristic at the time.

@spitfire3003

10 ай бұрын

@@oscarchoy9469 nope it was actually fairly expensive US estimates that if the T34 was built to US standards it would be about as expensive as the Sherman but the T34 wasn’t cheap it was 130,000 roubles

Correction: At the start of the war, various nations/empires had medium, and medium to heavy, tanks in service. The British had the Matilda, which the Germans were uanble to knock out without the help of 88's, the Soviets had the KV tank and the French had the Char 2C (which did not see service).

@Spore9996

10 ай бұрын

Don't forget the Char B1.

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

depends how you define heavy tank, Matilda was an infantry tank instead of a medium or heavy KVs were very few in numbers even in 1941 which is 3 years after the war started too

@generalfluffyproto

2 ай бұрын

Pretty sure the matilda was able to tank a few shots from the 88

3:24 a little correction: the medium tanks mentioned should have been animated as Panzer 3 or 4 since Panther was only developed after the German ran into them. Also, the Panther is the German response to T-34, not Tiger. The Tiger development already started much earlier

One of the main reasons that the allies didn't invest in heavy monsters, is that they had to transport them. Across oceans in the case of the USA, advancing towards Berlin for all of them. The Germans fighting defensively, we're not wanting to shift them much, if at all.

@tangydiesel1886

10 ай бұрын

Correct. It had to be light enough to go on most train flatcars, boats, cranes, and bridges(permanent and temporary). One of the issues the US had with the purshing tank (not counting reliability issues) was most of the infrastructure the entire way from factory to fight couldn't support it.

1:40 "Medium" Tanks: Shows Chi-Ha with *25mm* of armour thickness 🤣

@chunkspunk

10 ай бұрын

The Chi-Ha is a dedicated medium tank. It's classification was based more on it's weight than it's armor.

@user-op8fg3ny3j

10 ай бұрын

@@chunkspunk that's true. I just found it humourous how the Chi Ha is in the same category as the bigger tanks

@rankovasek1987

10 ай бұрын

Japan used them in their doctrine and classification as medium tanks. Such as a Panther would be a 'heavy' tank purely by classification by the US for example, but Germany used it as a medium tank.

@jansatamme6521

10 ай бұрын

@@rankovasek1987 it probably would have been a better tank if it hadnt been up armored at the command of hitler

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

@@jansatamme6521 hitler didn't have anything to do with the armour of the panther, the engineers decided to give it enough frontal armour to resist any weapons the allies were currently fielding. also the uparmoured version of the panther (panther 2) completely failed to reach production

It’s weird so weird how under-appreciated the Sherman is. It’s not flashy, it didn’t have the best armor, and it’s gun was definitely underpowered, but it was a fast, very reliable, ergonomic armored war machine that could be produced int the gazillions. A Panther or Tiger might look formidable on paper, but it couldn’t contribute much when broken down by the side of the road.

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

sherman was underappreciated a long time ago but it's reputation was flipped within the past 20 years or so. I'd say the sherman is overappreciated now tbh

@abbcc5996

9 ай бұрын

sherman sticks out too much if you dont have air superiority

@TheSlazzer

9 ай бұрын

all those reasons mentioned above! And I'd add to that the factor "Strategic mobility", which was especially important for the Americans, having to ship and rail them across the entire planet. That's why every tank on tank comparison has the caveat that it's not really important which was "the" best tank, but which was the right tank for the circumstances of a particular military. The Sherman definetly was the right tank for the western allies (and even soviet tank crews appreciated it a lot on the eastern front).

its hilarious how many youtube channels cover tanks just to cozy up a sponsor with WoTs regardless of what their content normally is XD

4:48 That's a post-war T-10M.

@diegocastro7434

10 ай бұрын

Also knows as Isoif Stalin 8 (IS8) later renamed to t-10

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

@@diegocastro7434 T-10M isn't an IS-8 though

4:49 isn't that a T-10? That certainly isn't the IS or IS-2.

@Gabor-xn3lm

10 ай бұрын

I think that's a T-10, but that tank (and many other soviet designs) were modeled after the IS-3. Also the T-10 was developed as the IS-8, but was renamed after Stalin's death. The tank shown can be found at the bottom of the IS Wikipedia page. (Yes I'm a nerd, and have too much free time.) Wrong tank shown, but can be forgiven for technical reasons, and also because it's the most recognisable out of the IS series.

@triggerwarning6469

10 ай бұрын

It really could be both it looks like an is3 and a t10 with the bulb

the t-34 shown is a t-34/85 a late war variant armed with a 85mm gun the models before it were armed with either a l-11 or f-34 76.2mm gun or a 57mm gun

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

tbf the 57 mm armed variants were incredibly rare, they only made 10 and none of them ever saw combat

@dennislemasters4339

10 ай бұрын

@@file4130 from what i read on the wiki all ten were lost during fighting around moscow in late 1941, the concept was revisited in 1943, but was dropped in favor of developing the t-34/85

@russman3787

9 ай бұрын

@@dennislemasters4339 they pulled one out of a swamp recently which is pretty cool

he is right techincally speaking the Churchill wasnt a heavy tank but classed as a infantry tank, as it is meant to be slow and work with infantry (what can i say we are very specail over here on our island), as a pose to the cavalry/cruiser tank which was meant to act like cavalry doing scouting missions. we also came up with a third tank class called the Universal tank which everyone else later called the main battle tank

@friedyzostas9998

10 ай бұрын

You're really not that special. The Infantry × Cruiser combo was a also copied by the Soviets, which also came to the conclusion that a Universal Tank would have been better (Talking about the T-44)

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

2 things 1. the UK was pretty much the last major country to develop their own universal tanks, everyone else had them mid or even early war while the UK didn't get theirs till post ww2. 2. UK did pioneer the infantry/cruiser tank setup, but they weren't the only ones doing it, especially early ww2.

@stanislavkos3723

10 ай бұрын

The question if Churchill is a heavy tank is just playing with words and doctrines. Infantry tanks were designed to support infantry and create breakthroughs in enemy lines with their heavy armour that could be utilised by the faster and lighter cruiser tanks. Germans had a program for a tank with similiar purpose called Druchbruchwagen(breakthrough tank). That program resulted in a tank(you may have heard of it) called Pz. VI Tiger. British Charioteer is a similiar case: While it's design was based purely around mounting a bigger gun on a Cromwell(meaning it should be a tank destroyer), acording to doctrine it was a medium tank, because it had coaxial machine-gun, which tank detroyer don't have.

As mentioned in a video by the Chieftain, the M4 Sherman was thoroughly tested to workout the kinks by actually driving it on many conditions back in the USA. Hence, it was refined before being mass produced. Unlike the German ones.

@sravans149

10 ай бұрын

Although every first series production tanks were unreliable is every country German tanks were notorious for reliability issues not cuz they were the only ones breaking down but they were crazy hard to fix on the field

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

the shermans had pretty big issues when they were first deployed in north africa, they were fixed later on though

As a Brit who's got "Sherman" as my surname, I have a slight bias for the Sherman Firefly

You can tell summer is in full swing. It seems like all the KZreadrs are dishing out full video ads this month

I’m pretty sure that Shermans would probably break down on that long of a journey, but they could be very easily maintained. They were probably the most effective tank of the war

@Ketoku_fr

10 ай бұрын

That's basically why everyone loved the Sherman. The US built it with the fact that actually getting new parts from across the ocean would take time, so the Sherman was made to be capable of getting a quick repair on the go. Just find a broken Sherman and repair your Sherman

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

yeah that claim with the sherman is completely inaccurate, major malfunctions would be very likely, even if it did travel that far it likely would have had to stop for minor repairs plenty of times

The Sherman was a pretty good machine, it was reliable, we could make them in numbers, and it was field repairable overall which counts for a lot. The Russians go a bunch of them thru lend-lease and the Russian crews like them. The Brits up the gun and made the FireFly to take care of well the German heavies in the west, there were never many of those in any one place to make any difference to the outcome of the War. Post-war a lot of nations operated Shermans, Israel took all the ones they could get and reworked them, and well those reworked Shermans made short work of Egyptian T-55s in 19 67! The biggest plus in my opinion, was the ease of transport. You could ship them anywhere with the existing infrastructure and bridges were not a major problem due to weight.

@scottanos9981

10 ай бұрын

I always thought the Israelis used British Centurion tanks against the T55

@Namelessthe3rd

10 ай бұрын

@@scottanos9981 They used both during the 6-Day war, as well as Pattons and AMX-13s. Honestly the IDF was basically a NATO soup for most of its history, if you were selling they were buying.

Oh boy, my homie SideQuest is about to open up a can of worms.

The tiger wasn’t produced as a response to the soviets, that was the Panther. The origins of the tiger program were found before the war, as a more heavily armoured assault tank.

Interesting thing is the Abrams is about the same size as the Tiger II was

This doesn’t even mention the T28. It was actually built for production while the german tanks were built as a fantasy. It was built for germanys defensive line and the Japanese mainland invasion.

@dudeski6548

10 ай бұрын

@@vardekpetrovic9716 dude like 500 T-28's were built

@gamercow.1418

10 ай бұрын

@@dudeski6548 Not the russian T-28, the american superheavy 100+ ton moving bunker.

@dudeski6548

10 ай бұрын

@@gamercow.1418 oh the turtle or whatever nickname it had?

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

@@vardekpetrovic9716 the T28 started life as the T28 heavy tank, got renamed for a few years to T95 GMC, then was renamed to T28 super heavy tank, I would definitely call it a tank

@gamercow.1418

10 ай бұрын

@@dudeski6548 Yes

Tanks for the video, SideQuest!

Glad you're back. Love you guys at sidequest!

original thumbnail for the video: hitler with a tiger tank new video thumbnail: stalin with a t-34

it would of been nice to see you talk about the French char 2C and its weight of 69 tons finally being beaten by the German tiger 2 4 years later

While the Churchill often had a somewhat limited yet still reasonably effective 6pdr gun, though 75mm and specialist versions existed, the thing about the Churchill is that the British classified tanks as Infantry Tanks (slow but armored) and Cruising Tanks (fast but light). The Churchill was an Infantry Tank with up to and beyond a 100mm of frontal armour and weighing in at about 40 tons. Being a very well armoured Infantry Tank, while not specifically a Heavy Tank, it is as close to being a Heavy Tank as the British got in the Second World War. For all intents and purposes it is Britain's Heavy Tank despite mostly having 6pdr guns. Denying this by standing, and as you said, dying, on that hill doesn't help anyone.

Great video as always. Very minor mistake but I thought I should point out at 1:15 you list the 50mm shell as having the same projectile weight as the 37mm one. Good day!

Yes! Finally! A marvelous new video!

This was a really interesting video. Nice job.

I love how you sound so posh, yet cultured in meme and extra funny as well, the best combination for an educational youtube channel.

1:46 Little side note: *_IV_* is the Roman numeral for 4, not _IIII_ as you see on some clocks including the one in the video...

@Tomahawkaoe

10 ай бұрын

In clocks they use IIII instead of IV because it would be easier for uneducated people to tell between IV and VI and also romans started using this on sunclocks because an IV turned downwards could be an offense to Jupiter (IVpiter). You can see it in many clocks, such as the grand train station in NYC has an IIII instead of IV.

@SirAnthonyChirpsALot

10 ай бұрын

The convention of using IIII instead of IV is a long held tradition in clock making. Using the quadruple i is the convention. The reason, I think, is because otherwise it would be easy to mix up IV and VI. Another factor to consider is that for most of history, writing IIII, VIIII, XXXX, etc. was not only perfectly acceptable, but also more common than using the "subtractive" method.

@BlackWater_49

10 ай бұрын

@@SirAnthonyChirpsALot I was basically talking about how the actual Romans did it back in the day and the subtractive method is a lot more efficient.

I think the tackiest tank is also about looks, as well as a combination of all characteristics of a tank (speed, armour, and firepower). I believe that the Chaffee is a contender because it looks like a classic tank, despite it not having the firepower or armour. The other contenders I believe are M4 Sherman, T-34-85, Pz. IV, Cromwell and Centurion. The centurion pushes it as a ‘world war two’ tank but it technically was produced and shipped to fight before the war ended. The centurion is considered a very prominent tank design.

Tanks for the video ;]

i like this British fella

@th0mas_papill0n3

10 ай бұрын

Oi, me do fancy tis briish laddie

@AveCruxSpesUnica

10 ай бұрын

Him and Lindybeige

Quality video, as usual. Tank you.

Tanks for this great video 😉

Agreed on tankiest tank and also champion tank. Love a great accurate chunk of information, makes me feel like download more chunks and playing World of Tanks. Not even an advert, legit, well done the WoT crew got their monies worth.

Such a charming animation style in these videos

Percy: He’s back! Thomas: Ahem Percy: Oh! I mean uh.. HE’S BACK!!!

Ah yes, the tactical tin cans

@TheEstrangedMarketSocialist

10 ай бұрын

Copied other comment

The Bob Semple tank. No contest.

@thefirstkingdogo1126

10 ай бұрын

The L3

Many tanks for this video!

Excellent work and always so funny !

wrong, I am the tankiest tank

I am sure Hitler was lacking in a part of his anatomy, that's why he always wanted to have the biggest tanks of them all.

4:01 hungary used AI peace treaties

There are quite a few inaccuracies and even blatant myths propagated in this video (eg "The Tiger tank was developed as a counter for the T-34" - that's simply not true.). To be fair, however, this channel's target audience probably isn't hobby-tank-experts and "hobby-historians" - but rather entry-level interested folks. And for that this was a pretty good first introduction into the topic.

Tank nerd here. Love your video and I agree with almost all of it. My only problem is with calling the T-34 the second best. On paper sure, but it suffered from massive reliability issues arguably worse than the Tiger and was almost never built without cutting massive corners. They would often be missing headlights, radios, rotating seats for the gunner, so he would have to stand up and turn himself around manually. The armor was often not made as well as it should have been. This meant that tons of T-34s were lost to Panzer IIIs who theoretically couldn't get through the armor. That isn't the half of it. If it could be cheaped out on, it was. This leaves us with the difficult question of what the second best tank was. I assume we can't use Sherman modifications like the 76, Jumbo, and Firefly. Maybe the Panzer IV, Pershing, or Crusader (As long as you keep it away from sand.)

@papa_pt

10 ай бұрын

ahh yes the caveat with all Soviet creations

@whispofwords2590

10 ай бұрын

Maybe something british? The Cromwell? Honestly the Shermans seem to be the only line of tanks from WW2 that didn't have some glaring issue (which is not to say they didn't have issues at all, just not to the same extent).

@hudsondeweerd3910

10 ай бұрын

@@whispofwords2590 Agreed.

@commisaryarreck3974

10 ай бұрын

I wouldn't even rank the Sherman that high Good for an empire with borderline infinite industry and resources and the presumption of constant and endless air support and dominance For the cost of a late war Sherman you could afford a Panther, even 1.5 Panzer 4s The main glaring flaw being it's profile, war crime rounds (god bless history totally glossing over the war crime that was and is White Phosphorous smoke grenades) might be a positive if you belong in the hague, but the evil empire reserves the right to invade any nation to rescue it's criminals Otherwise a solid tank, especially for the war crime rounds. They did wonders on enemy tanks too, almost more effective then the 76mm variants

@whispofwords2590

10 ай бұрын

@@commisaryarreck3974 and here we go with one of these guys...dude where to even begin. First of all, especially from a mechanical perspective, the Sherman was far superior to the Panther. Unlike the panther it had a reliable propulsion system that didn't shred itself. Its frontal armor, despite it very much being a medium tank, was effectively only slightly thinner then that of a Tiger, a heavy tank. Its gun was pretty good when you compare it to most mediums. Its survivability was equal if not in some later variants superior to that of a Panzer IV, later variants had superior firepower, more practical optics (because a lense being able to zoom in further doesn't make it better) , had better ergonomics, and was far more reliable. The PZIV was very much an inferior design. When your referring to "war crime rounds" I assume youre talking about phosphorus, which is dumb on so many different levels. Those shells primarily exist to make smoke. In most situations an HE shell would be better for use against infantry. Then there's the whole air support nonsense. Yes, its true the allies generally had air superiority and better artillery but that does not account for successes in every battle. It has also been proven that the majority of claim air kills against tanks were false. Simply the result of a pilot flying at 200 plus mph not getting a proper look at the target. I could go on and on but honestly Im sick and tired of replying to people with this same outdated unsubstantiated view on ww2 equipment.

Toward the end of the war the Americans and British fielded peak level medium tanks the Pershing and Comet.

@Tuning3434

10 ай бұрын

Let's not forget that Centurion was just around the corner.

@williamkarbala5718

10 ай бұрын

It’s kinda wild that one of greatest tanks of all time missed the war it was meant for.

@nitebones1

10 ай бұрын

@@williamkarbala5718 what is more wild was we were also still developing the black prince at the same time with its wopping 10.5mph on the road

I don't really want to be that guys *but...* Some of the statistics provided do not match their illustrations... At 0:48 the illustration for the M2 light tank is an M2A2 while the statistics are that of the (I assume) M2A4, the difference is that the M2A2 have 2 turrets and that it only used a 12.7mm M2 browning instead of the 37mm gun. Another one is the Russian T-34 at 1:39, the illustration shows a T-34-85 (as in 85mm gun) while the statistics are more likely for the T-34 (1940) or 41 variant. Aaand the illustration for the "IS tank" is actually a T-10m (instead of an IS-3) which was only called the IS-10 in production but was later renamed in 1953 (production started in 1952, way after ww2 -.-) At 5:06 the M6 heavy tank's statistics are indeed that of the M6A1 but the illustration is actually an M6A2E1 which is a modified variant of the T1E1 (earlier version of the M6) with more armor and a 105mm gun from the T29 heavy tank, only 2 was built of this version as it was cancelled in 1944. No comment about the Churchill VII, I am not brave enough to take on our British lad :v

'open youtube' => 'last video 31 sec' hmmm ok

So this was just a big add, thanks for that

0:49 the American tank in this image is the m2a2, a duel turreted machine gun tank while the stats describe an m2a4, the forerunner to the stuart

The 88mm was used as yearly as 1942 in the Tiger I, and 1918 and AA guns. The Flak 18, and later Flak 36, the latter being modified into the Kwk 36, the one used in the Tiger. And they only made one Mause, then second was never completed.

Who does the voice over? Incredible voice. Would be awesome to hear him reading literally anything for some asmr style videos…

always love your content

Glad I am not the only person who feels the Sherman tanks do not get as much respect as they deserve. True they did not have the armor or the firepower of many other tanks of the war but: 1. It was far easier to mass produce than most if not all other models of the era; 2. They were reliable; 3. Because of the mass production, they were relatively easy to service and parts were readily available; and 4. My understanding was the design made them relatively easy to design and produce variants capable of carrying out special tasks. Need to clear a minefield? There is a Sherman for that. Got an amphibious situation? There is a Sherman for that. Need a bulldozer to clear obstructions for your army? There is a Sherman for that. Need to burn your way across vast quantities of territory? Well the best Sherman for that was in service in the 1860s but even the in the 1940s, there was a Sherman for that too.

@commisaryarreck3974

10 ай бұрын

A genocidal war criminal was in the 1860s Do want to correct it on that, my man was ECSTATIC about slaughtering civilians, as was his wife My man was bad enough that blacks in the south preferred the CSA...he did do a mighty fine job of slaughtering those too, or using them as slave labor before leaving them for dead Would've fit perfectly next to Himmler and Hitler

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

I've said this multiple times in the comments now, but the M4 definitely gets the respect it deserves now, it gets so much praise that it's gotten to the point where it's kinda overrated actually

Only ogs remember the original thumbnail

These kinds of comparisons miss the point that in the real world, tanks don't fight on arenas crafted to create a competitive contest. They all exist in a particular strategic and military-economical context. They have their intended roles within it, and must achieve as much as possible with as little as possible for the country building and fielding them, especially when in a context of industrial total war between great powers. As an example, the Tiger and the Panther are often derided as cases of German over-engineering, but make sense when considering context: The Tiger was meant as a breakthrough weapon that was only intended to be put in for special occasions, and expected to have plenty of idle time in between to do all that maintenance work. The Panther arguably over-emphasized long-range tank-on-tank combat for being a general-purpose medium tank, but it wasn't intended to be that, that was the job of the Panzer IV, instead the Panther complemented that and expected to fight such long-range tank battles on the Eastern Front, which really was make-or-break for Germany at the time of its introduction. The best example though of how context matters for tank design would likely be the Sherman. It had to be shipped overseas to get to the war, and most seaports had cranes that were rated to being able to lift 40 metric tons. So pretty much all Sherman designs were just below that limit. Another, similar example is the Hetzer tank destroyer, which was born out of the need for the Skoda works to be able to produce a viable tank destroyer (which at the time meant a 75mm gun at least) using their existing production facilities and their cranes, which meant a max weight of 16 tons, resulting in a very cramped design and a very front-loaded armour profile.

Tank You Sidequest! Hope you get all the support you need for more videos

Tank you for the new episode. ;)

You showed a T-10/IS-4 for the "IS" series of tanks, which were drastic redesigns and improvements and heavier than the original IS's which you used as the stats, and were never fielded in ww2.

@chunkspunk

10 ай бұрын

The T-10 was never the IS-4, it was it's own tank.

@Panzer_Craze

10 ай бұрын

@@chunkspunkT-10 used to be named the IS-8 was changed after Stalin died

@chunkspunk

10 ай бұрын

@@Panzer_Craze Im aware. But it wasn’t the IS-4.

@Panzer_Craze

10 ай бұрын

@@chunkspunk yea wasnt, i meant to reply to him

@WelcomeToDERPLAND

10 ай бұрын

@@chunkspunk Thats just what it looks like in the photo, I wasnt sure which one it was exactly, but its still the wrong image to be using when talking about the early versions of the IS's that actually fought in the war.

the tankiest tanks of ww2. Sounds like the kind of title the panzerkampfwagen internet experts are creaming at the sound of.

Great creativity as usual

I fully expected him to say Cromwell at the end.

The Tank has a pretty hard and fast rule to decide whether or not... its a tank. For example M3 Bradley (Not a Tank), despite having tracks, "armor" and a turret with a big gun. Its not a tank If youre not designed to be able to take a main gun round to the face and still have a hope of working or protecting your crew... youre not a Tank.

I always appreciate a good anchor man reference

Thank you very much for another glorious informative video, Sir SideQuest!

Love this channel

What about the tanks commanders like such as George Patton, Erwin Rommel, Michael Wittmann, Otto Carius, Kurt Knispel and Lafayette G. Pool.

The boys are back!

Tanks for the video 😝

knew this was an ad before watching it, and still i watched and i'd daresay enjoyed it anyways

Churchill was a heavy tank, it was just a different type of heavy tank to the Germans and Soviets, it was designed to support infantry and attack positions head on opposed to hunting enemy tanks

Light tanks were not completely replaced they were just used in different roles. In the pacific theater they did not have as much tank warfare and it was often with lighter tanks

Truly marvelous of a video indeed!

Char B1 bis. I Say that because the Konigs operated against Firefly and M4A3E8's, which had guns that had less hard of a time dealing with KT, than everything early-war Germany had to use against CharB1.

@file4130

10 ай бұрын

the Tiger 2 was never penetrated by anything frontally during WW2, the allies had a pretty bad time fighting them when they didn't have overwhelming air support

1:54 Anchorman reference!

@paleoph6168

10 ай бұрын

1:43

Babe, new side quest just dropped

Ahh yes the Bob Semple Tank, Clearly the Tankiest of all!

@RubyDoobieScoo

10 ай бұрын

Not a single one lost in battle.

@thefirstkingdogo1126

10 ай бұрын

​@RubyDoobieScoo and the country that hade them was not invaded ones after they made it

Thank you so much!

Apparently everyone seem to forget to look at the French tank at the beginning of the war. Un odieu connard made a video about the battle of Stone. You should look at it.

Every tank on tank comparison has the caveat that it's not really important which was "the" best tank of the two, but which was the right tank for the circumstances of a particular military. The Sherman definetly was the right tank for the western allies (and even soviet tank crews appreciated it a lot on the eastern front, especially for its reliability and ergonomics). Also, a perhaps unpopular opinion, the ability to penetrate another tank's armor is a vastly overrated factor. Yes, definetly not hugely overrated, but still. Most tanks were not stopped by another tank, but by mines, (towed) anti tank guns, reliability (eg engine fires). And tanks encountered infantry and anti tank guns way more often than enemy armor. So there was definetly a point in having tanks with low velocity guns with high effectiveness in blowing things up. Especially in the earlier war years, when "medium" tanks were only available in relatively small numbers. "Medium" in this context meaning "requires a bigger gun to knock out than a light tank".

Wow haven't seen a world of tanks ad in a while

Average combat life of a tank crew is so short, that the ergonomic issues of the t-34 is not a big problem

60% of the time, every time. 😎

Overall nice video. There were a couple mistakes at the tank armor numbers and showing a T-34 destroy a panther then saying that tiger was made to counter that when really it should've been a panzer 4 (or 3)that the T-34 destroyed.

The tiger was a breakthrough tank. Also the churchill is a heavy tank. Due to it's nature, even if it's an infantry tank, matilda is arguable and i'd say it's a heavy by factor of effective armour protection.

OMG HE IS BACK

The debate I had clicking on this was whether it was sponsored by War Thunder or World of Tanks.

If we went on sheer designs of the tank, and what it was capable of doing in multiple roles, its gonna be Hobarts Funnies.

Oof. That's a toughie. This looks like fun. The Churchill maybe? Or maybe the Tiger? I like the big, slab-sided, screw-sloped-armor types for pure "tankiness". Oh, I know. The KV2? Not much tankier than a KV2. (That thing is seriously visually intimidating) though I do have a soft spot for the Grant and Char B.... The "tankiest tank" is going to make for one great comments section.

Goes to show that bigger isn't always better

If the Maus counts (despite never getting beyond prototype stage) then my vote for tankiest tank in an all rounder sense goes to the Centurion.