What kind of tank is this?
HOLLYWOOD
In the movie, “Fury“, U. S. Army Sgt. Don “Wardaddy” Collier (Brad Pitt) commands a tank with a five-man crew in the storied 66th Armored Regiment in the 2nd Armored Division, as it is invading the heart of Germany in April 1945 – just days before the Nazi surrender.
Trivia question: What kind of tank is Pitt commanding?
In the movie, it was a Sherman M4A3E8, more commonly known as an “Easy Eight”.
If the movie was based on a real character – and supposedly it is not – Collier would not have been driving an Easy Eight. And he wouldn’t have been fighting a German Tiger TI – but we digress.
In the film, since a point is made in the movie that Collier loves his tank, and he and the crew have named it “Fury” – the name they’ve painted on its 76 mm gun barrel. Supposedly, they’ve all been fighting together – in Fury – since the North Africa campaign in 1942. If that was so, Fury would have probably been a much earlier model M4 Sherman, like an M2 or M4A3, each of which went into production in 1942. But with a 50 percent casualty rate in most mid-WWII tank battles, an earlier M2 or M4 model that survived 3+ years of combat would have been unheard of. (In fact, only one Sherman tank – a Canadian one – is known to have survived as long as from June 1944’s D-Day all the way to May 1945’s V-E Day.)
In real life, the Easy Eight, equipped with its 76 mm gun, was a relatively late addition to the war effort – only in production since late 1944. The Easy Eight featured a bigger gun and a better suspension. And they were not completely at the mercy of German tanks.
Production notes mention that Fury was designed and built by Henry Ford, and the German tanks were masterminded by Ferdinand Porsche. (Ergo, it was not a fair fight!) Yeah, okay, kinda sorta. Ford Motor Company didn’t design the Sherman, but it did build them – but only 1,690 M4A3s from June 1942 to September 1943. In all, about 50,000 were built for the war – and the vast majority of Shermans were built by General Motors and Chrysler.
The comparatively rare Ford-built Shermans were equipped with Ford’s 450-horsepower, 18-liter GAA V8 engine – originally a V12 knock-off of Rolls-Royce Merlin and Allison aviation engines that were supposed to be used in American planes. When the Navy turned the Ford V12 down – because they decided to use radial engines – Ford lopped off four cylinders and converted it into a tank engine.
I believe the tank used in the movie had a Ford engine, but it was not a battle-scared M4 from the North Africa campaign.
So why use (possibly) the wrong tank in a movie that insisted so much on realism and authenticity (okay, other than the men’s haircuts)? Probably because there aren’t many surviving WWII tanks available to today’s filmmakers.
The American tanks in the movie – ten were used – were all M4A3E8s and all came from the Bovington Tank Museum in southern England (if you go, “Fury” is the one with serial # T224875) where the movie was principally filmed.
The last WWII Tiger tank?
That’s also where the filmmakers got the movie’s nearly indestructible German Tiger I tank (a.k.a. “Panzers”) – a relic that was out of production by 1945. But the one at the tank museum is reputed to be the only surviving Tiger 131 tank still in working order.
The Tiger was a feared fighting machine, but among the criticisms leveled at it was that it was heavy, cumbersome and over-engineered – you know, just like today’s German cars! (Just kidding. Sort of.) America’s Shermans, to their credit, were considered manueverable, reliable and quick on the draw (like a gunfighter – another relevant comparison).
But, the point is – regardless of some of the plot disconnects in Fury – by that time in World War II, Germany had far superior tanks (albeit fewer of them), and could blow most of the American tanks to smithereens. Earlier in the war, it was a much more even fight; but the Germans continued to improve their tanks, while the Americans stupidly did little in that regard. And the tank crews, like those in Fury, paid a terrible price.
Jerry Garrett
November 1, 2014
Garrett On The Road 
It would be better to tell if side by side with a Firefly for instance, but I believe the tank in the photo IS a US M4/76 but NOT from ww2, after ww2.
I may be wrong, I’m doing this on the fly 3am after marking papers all night.
Here’s why.
1. Muzzle break. To my recollection and quick perusal at the pc, all my videos, photos, blue-prints of them during ww2 have NO muzzle breaks, the feature at the end of the barrel designed to help reduce recoil force and muzzle flash.
2. Barrel length. The Firefly barrel was significantly longer. Indeed the Firefly hull was slightly longer, a little more front armour and the turret shorter and smaller to make a smaller target.
3. The commander cupola mg. Designated for anti-aircraft purposes, the priority target for any infantry let alone sniper the entire torso let alone head of the tank commander itself, the Allies had all but complete air superiority since D-Day and I’ve seen no photos etc of these with these mgs except in the Korean and Israeli wars.
4. The hull gun. Like the Firefly, this had been removed to make space for the shells in ww2, only after ww2 do I see any examples of this.
The Germans had in fact solved their reliability problems by the end of the war. When the Tigers first came out in 1942 vs Leningrad and the Panthers in 1943 at Kursk most were crippled by breakdowns and difficult repairs, however by the end of the war that was more a US and Russian failing.
The Sherman was a maintanence dream, pathetic design, but even the entire engine could be replaced in Europe or Asia not sent back to factory.
However, the US heavy, M6a2 was disastrous, too late in ww2 to face any panzer, their reliability problems extended years through the Korean war in fact, 7 years. Where the US Shermans had to face off with Russian T34s instead.
Even then American commanders would disobey orders to request Brit/Cdn tank support instead, even the last version of Churchill the Black Knight could deal with coasts and inclines US tanks couldn’t. The Brits had finally learned their lessons from their ww2 Churchills and Challengers, the end war Centurion(also too late to face panzers) would be the world’s choice for over 15 years(especially Israel).
But you make another excellent point, Tiger production had ceased in 1943, replaced by Tiger IIs(King or Konigstigers), though the vast majority of German armour faced the final year were tank destroyers like the Jpz even Sturmgeschutz conversions assault guns. Zhukov(Russia’s greatest tank general) blamed the SGIII alone for destroying 3 T34/85s even JsIIs for every SG lost in the Battle of Berlin.
It is pure nonsense to claim that a US M4/76 of any shell at the time would reliably take out the front armour of even a Tiger I let alone Tiger II at 1000 m. The ONLY tank the Germans feared at that range was the Brit/Cdn/Pol Firefly, which could give it out but unlike the German Panther, Tiger, Tiger II, Jpz, Jagdpather worse Jagdtiger couldn’t take it. That’s total unhistorical nonsense and why I understand why few of the veterans of groups I’ve asked are interested in seeing the movie except maybe on video, and those that already have very disappointed.
It dishonours them to lie about such things, the greater heroism and valour is their going into battle knowing they are in inferior equipment.
Also Pitt would never be a tanker. Even when I was a teenager, slim 5’9/174cm I couldn’t fit into let alone operate either the T34 or Shermans etc, only this inoperable Tiger we got to see in France back in the 70s. They had height restrictions, I don’t think I can remember a single ww2 tanker from any nation i’ve ever met let alone interviewed who would’ve been taller than 5’5/164cm.
As for Tigers. I’ve seen documentaries on 2 Tiger restoration projects, one in the UK the other in the US, with rumours of another in France and I will believe the claims of one in Russia when I see a modern video of it, otherwise no. I wonder what happened to the 3 Henschel versions used in Kelly’s Heroes, owned by private collector if I recall correctly, otherwise movies get by with putting Tiger turrets on other chassis and worse.
Movies have always lied about their historical accuracy. I remember us purchasing the editors version of the Battle of the Bulge and historian commentary claiming use of actual tanks from the actual battle, balderdash. They used American training M6s as King Tigers, despite the models shown the German generals actual King Tigers, and M3 Chaffees as M4 Shermans. Historians can understand faking stuff, but claiming to be so authentic when not is worse.
Sad thing is, we’re all sure we’ve seen a post-Normandy Sherman in some show someplace with the 76 long gun, but we’re getting old and mental. Sure hope it wasn’t Bovington, they’ve been great to us in the past insisting on hosting our conventions.
It bothers the veterans themselves the most you know, they take it as if we’re disrespecting them or their memory, even if the uniforms or insignia are wrong, let alone weaponry and equipment, locations or especially events. With so much real valour, why do you have to make stuff up?
A movie I would like to see done right if they could, would be the killing of the most infamous tank killer of ww2, Waffen SS-Hauptsturmfuhrer Michael Wittman, a hated but respected foe. Just weeks after mauling an entire armoured column with just one other Tiger, he borrowed Tiger 007 with his own crew and led a squadron to counter-attack the British. In this rare occasion, the Brit gunner quoting “never before never since” did he ever hit 3 moving targets anywhere near 900 meters in 3 rapid fire shots, otherwise ‘we would’ve been toast’, near on 90 degrees to the flank of the Tigers in diamond formation. But it was an older Canadian M4 Sherman long in wait with its barrel pointing out a hole made in the stone wall, that got a shot at Wittman’s Tiger broadside opposite flank about 140m if I recall correctly, he believed he hit the engine compartment somehow, but quickly blowing the turret right off, no chance for the crew to bail. Now that’s reality and worthy of a movie, both admitting they were dead if the Germans got to turn, reverse and/or fire back.
Even the Firefly crews would paint the end of their barrels blue white to try to look like a normal Sherman because the Germans rightly ‘picked on’ the Fireflies alone as a threat. Only the 17pdr Firefly(76mm) or Comet(77mm) could penetrate the front armour of a Tiger, Panther or Tiger II etc, and not regularly either, so the Germans gave orders to give all priority to their destruction. The Firefly could give it out as well as the GErmans, but they couldn’t take it back as well as the Germans, still in the pitiful Sherman hull.
The true bravery and I couldn’t do it is the Firefly commander ordering the other mates ‘Joe, George, Jean you all charge that Tiger trying to outflank and get behind him and hope I can knock him out before he knocks us out, ok? go!’ ….’you go to hell Jim, i’m going to hope he doesn’t even notice me over behind this wall’ or ‘yeah, i’ll be right behind you guys’.
I’d rather those movies about real heroic events portrayed realistically and not be lied to about the ‘actual historical equipment’.
But there always those ‘catastrophic’ lucky shots, that jam a turret or penetrate a foolishly open view-port even the barrel of the target itself, though more likely a track. Hell military simulations proved that the shot the Bismark took on the Hood, first salvo, blowing it apart, was a one in a million chance, but it happens. However it is absolutely wrong to portray the Bismark as being able to blow apart any foe with any shot like that.
The American tanks in particular were called ‘ronson’ or ‘tommy burners’ because they way they designed their munitions storage they were the most likely tanks to burn up/blow up even with non-penetrating strikes. But to portray the M4/76 as a stand up threat head on to a Tiger, Panther or Tiger II, even worse at night where Germans had huge advantage in night vision, I agree, is unrealistic, unhistorical and dishonours the bravery and suffering of those veterans manning the actual tanks.
You make another excellent point about Americans upgrading. They did have the heavy M6 option, but as the Brits would buy as much of anything offered, greed prevailed, the thousands of M2s only justifiable against the ridiculous Italian and Japanese tankettes if ever, the M3s a Czech tanker once told me they thought the Americans trying to copy the T34 but only admired its speed in ‘getting away’, and the M4 the ‘tommy cookers’ instead.
Even by war’s end the M6 they did put out was worse than the worst German failures and problems would not be solved even through the Korean war. At least the Brits got it right with the Centurion to the Russians dismay in Europe.
Before D-Day the Brits offered the Americans their Fireflies. All Brit, Cdn and Polish squadrons of 4 would have 1 Firefly. The Americans refused.
The Brits offered them their Hobart Funnies, their amphibious and engineering tanks that had 80% success rate at Normandy, to the US 15%, the Americans refused.
Even in the Korean war when US commanders were disobeying orders requesting Brit/Cdn tank support rather than their own, the US tried to refuse, thankfully for South Korea enough US commanders disobeyed those orders.
Why? arrogance and greed maybe.
The Brits and Canucks swallowed their pride to take anything the Americans could give them, even junk, but the Yanks apparently didn’t feel the lives of their crews as important.
As many tankers, almost all, same as pilots, would tell me, EXPERIENCE is as important as training but there is no experience if your crews don’t survive.
To prove the falsehood of the claims of M4/76 capabilities vs German heavies some of the best research compilations I’ve seen are from HPS Sims.com
Otherwise here.
HPSSims.com
or less so
http://www.wwiiequip…-data&Itemid=61
http://www.wwiivehic…/guns/76-mm.asp
Thanks to all interested in history who demand authenticity not settling for propaganda, and to those who put so much time, money and effort in restorations that we can actually see and touch parts of the past.
Miller Systems WW2 Campaign
By: Leigh Miller on January 11, 2015
at 1:02 pm
Thanks so much for taking the time to write. I agree, the real story of tank warfare is so much more compelling than Hollywood’s efforts to jazz it up. That said, the movie was pretty damned good reminder of the dangers!
By: Jerry Garrett on January 12, 2015
at 11:53 pm
A version of this just appeared on the Fox News website, however the photo above and the one used on Fox News is actually from the World of Tanks video game and not “The Tank Museum” as credited in the photo.
http://www.foxnews.com/auto/2017/02/20/in-military-collectibles-supply-often-falls-short-demand.html
By: Craig K. on February 21, 2017
at 8:20 pm
That has been pointed out and The Tank Museum has supplied a photo not associated with the game.
By: Jerry Garrett on February 23, 2017
at 5:30 am
What were you drinking or smoking when you watched the film?
Your “criticism” makes no sense…..as noted below, no one in the movie ever remotely says or implies “We have been physically present this exact same tank since 1942…..” the line is something like “We’ve been together (as a tank crew) for 3 years, since North Africa.”
As noted below, no one ever says or implies they have been physically in the same tank for 3 years.
Of course the same crew from 1942 onwards might have had 5,6,7 different tanks….M2 Medium tanks….M3 Lee medium tanks…3,4,5 models of the M4 Sherman…it was very common to trade in tanks for later models so the same crew by 1945 may have had 5-6 tanks.
You needs to watch the movie again, sober this time, because your “criticizing” something that’s not an error, and not in the film….
By: Christian M. DeJohn on August 25, 2015
at 5:56 pm
Oh. I just read the script, and had an insider’s knowledge of the making of the film. That’s all.
By: Jerry Garrett on August 26, 2015
at 3:42 am
my question is the shermans had a 75mm gun with m72 aps shells. With 110 mm pennestration at 10 m and 109 at 100m and 92 at 500 couldnt penn a tigers hull armor of 102mm. Not to mention the 82mm of hull armor around the drivers view port and the ammo racks right next to both the mg port and driver port just about 5 inches to the right and left of them. The 76mm gun however had no muzzle brake until the end of the war so they went really used much at all but their shells had apcbc apcr and ap all had close to 200 mm penetration and 109 at 1000 meters so in the movie they went even far from the tiger at all maybe 150 meters away so irl the tiger didnt stand a chance to a quick witted accurate SOB who can put a hole through a quarter at 500 meters. unless the tiger angled their armor then the shells would bounce
By: grove on December 19, 2015
at 7:29 pm
Nah. The M1A1C and M1A2 – the variants of the 76mm cannon with the muzzle break – were actually the most common variants 76mm cannon deployed in late 1944 – 1945. Models with the base M1A1 gun were upgraded to M1A1C standard, and all models produced after were dubbed the M1A2.
By: Grim Looters on December 14, 2015
at 7:07 pm
” The ONLY tank the Germans feared at that range was the Brit/Cdn/Pol Firefly[…]”
Tiger crews were told no to engage in 1:1 with IS2 at those ranges as it could easily destroy it.
Germans actually never learned from their errors. Their greatest tanks and tank destroyers were either copies or errors (stug 3, hetzer, panther)
A tank is not just its hull and the gun it carries…
By: Overlord1942 on December 27, 2015
at 9:56 pm
Wow so many inaccuracies so little time. OK…. First the Sherman’s reputation for catching fire is a MYTH at least in so far as every other tank on the battle field caught fire just as readily, and after its ammo storage was changed it was the LEAST FIRE PRONE TANK IN THE WORLD. This has been proven by primary sources time and time again stop, repeating this misinformation.
Second, while the easy 8 (m4a3e8) may not have been an ideal match for a tiger 1 it was certainly capable of knocking one out easily. Especially later in the war when high velocity ammo became more abundant.
Third, later in the war the US had more 90 mm tank destroyers and tanks than Germany had tanks to oppose them this was due to the panic of Normandy and the Bulge, and was not caused by tiger 1s but by the Panther which in almost every respect was a much better tank.
The British never were able to manufacture enough firefly’s to “give” them to the Americans until after the Americans own 90mm equipped tanks destroyers and tanks were already in service but some were provided very late in the war.
Percy Hobart himself is the person who started the myth that his “funnies” would have saved lives at Omaha Beach if only we had the Americans would have excepted then. But the fact is the British barely had enough for themselves, and it has been debated vigorously by far one better sources than myself weather they would have helped at all.
American tankers had the lowest casualty rates of any armored force in the war….. Even the British and especially the Germans. Many tank experts rate the M4 the most survivable tank of the war. The m4 though not extremely proficient in the anti tank role against Panthers (I don’t mention Tigers because they were hardly a factor) they were capable of destroying Panthers and did in fact destroy thousands of them, many more in fact than Sherman’s were destroyed by Panthers.
American tanks had very favorable engagement ratios with t34s in Korea.
I could go on but my swyping finger is getting tired. Please stop spouting myths about the M4 someone who doesn’t know better might believe them
By: David on January 25, 2016
at 6:42 am
Thank you, the myth that the Sherman was a fire trap is well known but not accurate. The Sherman had a comparative fire risk to other tanks of the time, but after the upgrades like wet ammo storage became one of the least likely tanks to burn. Also, on the myth of of the 75 mm gun not being able to handle the Tiger. Partially accurate, the problem wasn’t the gun, it was the ammunition. Usually inferior ammunition was used. The Russians used the proper rounds and killed the german tanks with with 75 mm gun regularly. Also, the Shermans were not that badly armored, they fell right in the middle of the pack…. less so then the Panthers and Tigers, but comparable or better then the T34 and the Pz4.
The Sherman has a bad rap, and it may not have been the best at some things but it was certainly a decent all around tank.
By: KrK on June 28, 2017
at 7:22 am
Never seen so much inaccuracy in my life… looks like you have been roundly put in to your place about tanks.. but ffs even your warship knowledge is non existent. .. The Bismarck fired for 5 minutes at the Hood before the fatal shell hit and had hit her at least once before in that 5 minutes.. It was not a lucky shot as Bismarck’s shells could easily defeat Hood’s woefully outdated deck armor at almost any range… Something both sides knew very well.
By: Guy Derdall on August 4, 2016
at 4:44 am
A bit assholish, your comments.
By: Patrick Morton on March 6, 2018
at 8:07 pm
Thanks for this very good insight on the movie’s accuracy. It seems to me that the criticisms are possibly correct, but a bit nit-picky. Comments by Christopher S. are excellent. As WW2 movies go, I can’t recall one that was more historically accurate than this one, can you? Certainly NOT “Patton”. That would have been a much greater movie if the equipment were more historically accurate.
By: Ken S. on September 21, 2016
at 7:23 pm
I feel that Saving Private Ryan tried to be super realistic for a fictional WW2 movie.
By: KrK on June 28, 2017
at 7:25 am
My father was a driver in a M4 Sherman in WW2 . He was 6’3″ , I have several photos of him in and on his tank . He never mentioned it being to small for his height.
By: Tim McKeever on January 11, 2017
at 3:07 am
Hi Leigh, you are mistaken with respect to height restrictions for western tankers. I’m 6’1″ and trained in Leopards in the 1980s (nowadays, I would have difficulty fitting through the hatch, but that’s another story… LOL). S.V. Radley-Walters, who I had the pleasure of meeting several times and was very significant in the Royal Canadian Armour Corps was definitely taller than I am. I met many WWII vets in our mess during my first regimental tour who also fought the war in Shermans. All of them were tall.
All the best,
—
Tim
PS, I think the few angry reactions you are getting are utterly uncalled for.
By: Timocracy on July 13, 2017
at 4:18 pm
WRONG. All three Shermans are WWII VIntage although NONE OF THEM ARE ‘EASY 8’s’. There are THREE SHERMANs depicted in the TIGER SCENE, Roy’s M4A3 75mm L/37 DEATH TRAP, Davis’ M4A2(76)W, Improved DEATH TRAP and Brad Pitts M4A3(76)W L/55 Best DEATH TRAP. I wasn’t so much their guns as was their Front Armour of 79mm/38mm side Armour. At 2000+ meters a Tiger I’s 88mm KWK36 L/56 could penetrate (89mm) while Brad’s M1 L/55 would only chip paint at 2000m (66mm penetration against the Tiger I’s 100 front armour & 120mm Gun Shield). My Uncle Frank went EYEBALL to EYEBALL with the ROOSKIES in BERLIN in ’48 and he always shivered when peered out the hatch of his dinky little M4A3(76)W while eyeballing a JS2 with its 122mm gun & 155mm slopped armour!!!
By: Michael Goncalves on December 28, 2017
at 9:30 am
well, you also got all the info in your comment wrong, wehraboo.
There were used 5 sherman tanks in film, not 10, from these 5, just 2 were provided by Bovington Musseum, the rest were provided by diferent private collectors: a M4(105) HVSS with an M4A3(76) turret (named Matador in movie) from Jeep Sud Est french collector shop, a M4A1 (76)W (named Old Phillis in movie) from Bovington Tank Musseum, a M4A2(75) (named Lucy Sue in movie) from Tay restorations, a M4A2E8(76)W (originally Ron/Harris renamed Fury for the movie) also from Bovington Tank Musseum, and a M4A4(75) (named Murder Inc) from Adrian Barrell private collection.
By: PredatorAnytime on October 5, 2020
at 9:31 am
Go on youtube and watch “Debunking Sherman Myths” by The_Chieftain, your rant is filled with so many lies and falsehoods it makes my brain hurt.
By: Friedhelm Kannicht on April 11, 2018
at 8:25 am
KELLYs hero’s” Tigers “were T34s wearing a prop body.
The track wheels give it away
By: Laurie Ridgwell on April 11, 2021
at 11:50 am
I have seen the movie several times and I don’t recall there being any mention of the crew being in the same tank from Africa to Germany, just that the crew had been together that long.
By: Christopher R. on February 24, 2015
at 4:37 pm
The implication seemed to be their tank was home.
By: Jerry Garrett on March 13, 2015
at 5:03 am
Additionally, I believe Brad Pitt’s character was based on Lafayette Pool, a decorated and highly successful WWII tank commander.
By: Christopher R. on February 24, 2015
at 4:40 pm
All of the Shermans in the film were not Easy 8’s. Also, by the time of the invasion of German the German Army was using older tanks, like the one depicted in the movie.
By: JC Delich on June 13, 2015
at 6:05 pm
Whether “Fury” could destroy a TI or TII or Panzer at the time wasnt the point of the movie. While I think historical fiction movies need to be as close to historically accurate as possible, accuracy is sometimes boring and most times not what you want to see in a movie. I’ll take my depleted-uranium armored M1A1 Abrams Main Battle Tank with a .50 BMG, an M240 7.62 mm coax gun, a second M240, and a whole lot of 120 mm Sabot rounds any day of the week. The sabot rounds are just a tungsten spike with a du tip. The friction of the spike going through the first set of armor melts the tungsten and it becomes a ball of molten metal bouncing around the inside of the hull and turret of the opposing tank. AGT 1500 turbofan engine pushing 1500 horses. The governor is set at 42 mph. It could go faster, but I think 42 is ok for a vehicle that weighs 68 tons (136000 lbs). Interesting learning, huh?
By: Trey m on July 5, 2015
at 7:30 am
You’re exactly right… Accurate is sometimes burning.
By: Landon on August 8, 2015
at 4:00 am
I wouldn’t. THE CHRYSLER BAIL-OUT TANK (like the CHRYSLER CUT-V Truck) drank JetFuel like a drunken sailour and if you were a ground pounder, you couldn’t duck down behind the M1 because it would BBQ you and your buddies. Yes, they were awesome in the 1991 Desert Storm fight but Armys don’t fight like that anymore. As for Iraq 2002, remember the 400 mile dash around Falugia (sic). No one could move because everyone ran out of fuel…then that sandstorm hit, and we were like sitting ducks.
As for your DP rounds, yes, they are nice toys but…once they splatter a tank, hope you live in CONUS & not Iraq as the battlefield becomes uninhabitable for hundreds of years.There are places in the ITO that make Hiroshima 1945 a Disney Theme Park…it is so hot with DP that it tracks off the scale. READ THE BRITISH report on DP and not the idiot American Army version ‘If you see a brewed up Iraqi tank…don’t eat yer MRE near it?!!!’ It was like THREE PARAGRAPHS vrs the GB’s 46 pages.
Tanks are an obsolete 1916 technological solution that worked well until about 1991. A $60K drone armed with a $45K missle would make mince meat out of your late 1970s era BAIL OUT Tank.
By: Michael Goncalves on December 28, 2017
at 9:47 am
You have no idea what you’re talking about just be quiet.
By: jonny on February 20, 2021
at 6:47 am
Does anybody else find it amazing how over 1,000 tiger tanks were built and ONLY ONE is still working. It’s amazing how many people are out there that just don’t realize how brutal war actually is. Sure, tanks are built to last, but all it takes is one good hit from another to turn a perfectly good working order fighting vehicle into a hunk of burning metal. Imagine what the American tank crews felt like when they saw those 88mm tiger guns turn around and point at there Sherman. All it takes is one good hit…
By: Landon on August 8, 2015
at 3:57 am
Yep, and the Tiger tanks were the tough ones…
By: Jerry Garrett on August 10, 2015
at 4:51 pm
What is truely staggering is Rommel and his 88mm FLAK36 L/56 guns. Rommel and his DAK, from 1941-1942 destroyed approximately 5,000 British (and American Lend Lease M4s) with about half going to his 88’s. If that were not impressive enough, he only had TWENTY 88mm FLAK36 L/56 in theatre with usually 8 in repair. That meant 12 LOUSY GUNS butchered all those tanks.
TANKS ARE NOT MEANT TO LAST, even the MODERN STUFF. You take an M1097 or M1113 HuMMV and you are lucky to get 60K miles on it before you need to scrap it. High Tempo use in unforgiving terrain does not bode well for automotive parts…
As for The German Armour, American Air Power was the chief cause of demise for the Panzers in the West vrs Russian Numbers in the East. Still, if you had to pick a branch & a theatre and be in the German Armed Forces—you had the best chance of coming home in one piece as a TREAD HEAD
By: Michael Goncalves on December 28, 2017
at 9:58 am
If, contrary to Mr. DeJohn’s post, you claim to have “insider knowledge” of the making of the movie, please elaborate. Do you know the producer, director, screenwriter, etc.? The movie, as released, makes NO mention or claim that this crew had been together in an Easy Eight since 1942. It was common practice for crews to be assigned to new tanks or newer versions of the same tank and to name their new vehicle the same as their old one. Your posting is simply an attempt on your part to point out that you know that an Easy Eight like Fury did not see action in Africa. Spoiler alert: LOTS of people know this! The difference is, they didn’t have “insider knowledge” and just enjoyed a very well made movie. I will expect your reply around 4:00 a.m.
By: Fred Schaffner on August 26, 2015
at 2:34 pm
dickish
By: Patrick Morton on March 6, 2018
at 9:08 pm
Also, in response to Leigh Miller’s assertion that Brad Pitt (5′ 11″) would “never be a tanker”… Heinz Guderian was 5′ 8″… George Patton 6′ 2″… Lafayette Pool 6′ 3″… need I go on?
By: Fred Schaffner on August 26, 2015
at 3:06 pm
n.b. “Tiger 131” is that specific Tiger’s name, it doesn’t indicate a model. So, yeah, that is the only surviving Tiger 131, in much the same way that I’m the only surviving @zgryphon. 🙂
By: Ben Hutchins (@zgryphon) on September 6, 2015
at 9:39 pm
Thank you, that was bothering me. So irritating when a writer doesn’t understand the subject matter when writing a ‘know-it-all’ article which is apparently supposed to set people straight. .
By: dshoka on March 18, 2016
at 7:17 am
The Tiger with the number 131 was captured in North Africa.
It is a true Tiger 1 (one of the first production models) and one of the first tiger tanks deployed to Rommel in North Africa.
By: Dave on June 23, 2016
at 8:59 pm
“while the Americans stupidly did little in that regard” wow, you need to hit the history books, you obviously don’t know about the Pershing, the first American heavy tank. The Pershing put fear in Germans and was designed to kill German tanks from the beginning.
By: Omar Martinez on October 24, 2015
at 3:31 am
Not to mention all the Sherman variants, which the writer seems to elude to having some sort of awareness of by bringing up the silly Africa thing.
By: dshoka on March 18, 2016
at 7:16 am
Sorry, I meant to type blogger, not writer. Big mistake on my part.
By: dshoka on March 18, 2016
at 7:21 am
I find it amazing how obvious a film has to be so that most people can understand whats going on. Do they have to spell out everything???Anyone with a little knowledge of WWII would never assume they were in the same tanks the entire time they were together as a crew. At no point is it stated they have had the same tank, and most tanks used in North Africa went on to Italy anyhow. It was not a Tiger II they were fighting either, it was a Tiger I, totally different beast (pun intended). Easy Eight Shermans were rather common by that point in the war, and yes, some had muzzle brakes. If you want to critique the reality of the movie, slamming the simplistic tactics the Germans use in attacking the tank would be better fodder. It reminded my of how children play war. In reality, that tank would have lasted about 2 minutes.
By: eoyguy on November 2, 2015
at 2:15 am
Despite its shortcomings the Sherman was still the war winner. By 1943 the US and Britain had pretty much rationalized all its equipment. Designs were settled on, efficient production had been established and factories could crank out the numbers. German over-engineering and in-fighting among branches and manufacturers assured that numerous designs and re-designs of redundant machines would bog down production potential. The best tank design in the world is still useless if you can’t produce the machines and their parts efficiently in numbers. American production actually outpaced the means to even ship all the Shermans to England.
It’s also simple-mindedness to compare Tiger Is and IIs to Shermans as the end-all, be-all. The German heavy tanks were *never* the main battle AFVs nor the majority on any front. The Pzr IVs and StuG IIIs were the vast bulk of German armour and an equal/ slightly better match to the Sherman. Doctrine dictated that lone Shermans were not to engage Tigers but to work in conjunction with the rest of the platoon and tank destroyers. Even then, they were far more likely to pull back and let artillery and rocket-firing aircraft do the job instead.
By: Jon on November 10, 2015
at 8:48 am
“German over-engineering” – some things never change!
By: Jerry Garrett on November 10, 2015
at 8:29 pm
WTF is an M3 Chaffee. I’ve heard of the M24 Chaffee but not the M3. The only U.S tanks of WW2 with the designation M3 that i know of were the M3 Stuart light tank and the M3 Lee/ Grant medium tank. Production of the Tiger 1 ceased in August 1944. As for the 3 ‘Tigers’ used in Kellys Heroes i think you’ll find they were converted russian tanks, a quick look at the road wheels and waffle pattern tracks will confirm that.
By: nick morrissey on November 15, 2015
at 1:27 am
Pretty misinformed opinion.
By: Mike Haines on December 4, 2015
at 9:47 pm
Fury is/was a M4A3E8 with a M1A2 main gun identified by it’s muzzle brake. The 76mm M1A2 was able to penetrate 7 inches of armor using HVAP (high velocity armor piercing) rounds at 1000 yards. In the movie they say the crew has been together since Africa, but since the Easy 8 was fielded in August 44 it’s easy to assume that they have had more than one tank named Fury. Lafayette G. Pool, nicknamed War Daddy by his crew, had three Shermans in his 81 day combat carreer. All named “In The Mood” numbered I thru III.
Shermans had 2 top mounted machineguns a .30 cal for the loader hatch beside the commanders hatch and a .50 used for AA.
The U.S. never had a max height requirement on their tankers. Lafayette Pool was 6′ 3”. Soviets had a height limit on their modern armor because of it’s low profile, smaller turrents and auto loaders that took up a lot of space. Friend of mine was an Abrams driver at 6′ 1”.
Regarding the poorly rendered pic, the .30 cal on the turrent in located near the gunners hatch and you can see the empty .50 mount to the right. The bow gun is still there it just looks like a part of the light guard.
The Tiger in the movie is a Panzerkampfwagen VI, Tiger I (E), SdKfz 181, chassis number 250122 captured in Tunsia in April 43. It’s preserved by The Tank Museum in Bovington England. While there are other Tigers on static display Tiger 131 is the last working Tiger. The “tigers” used in Kelly’s Heros wore visually modified T-34’s that Yogoslav army created for the movie. You can tell by the road wheels it’s a soviet tank.
The British Firefly was a stock M4 tank, no size difference from any other M4, with a brit modified brit 17 pounder in the turrent. There were 3 different varients of the Firefly based on different varients of the M4. The main way to recognize a Firefly was the travel lock for the longer barrel and the removal of the hull .30 mg. Hobart’s Duplex Drive tanks were designed to work in water with waves 1 foot or less. The waves were 6 feet on Omaha beach. The Americans lost 38% of their DD’s while the Brits and Canadians lost 31%. 290 DD’s were used, 120 launched at sea and 42 sunk. The U.S. didn’t refuse the DD and the majority of the U.S. losses were from one battalion which launched too far out.
Also using a wargaming site as a source of info is like drug advice from a heroin addict. Incoherent and full of fantasy.
By: Patrick Bowers on December 12, 2015
at 9:09 am
Great information! Thanks!
By: Jerry Garrett on December 13, 2015
at 10:26 pm
There’s nothing wrong with what you said, but the film producers certainly seem to have less of a knack for historical accuracy than they say they did.
Whilst Porsche was responsible for a great many Tank designs, the tank in the film – all models of the Tiger, including both the Tiger I and Tiger II – were actually creations of the German company ‘Henschell and Son’. Porsche was actually responsible for neither the Tiger I or Tiger II ‘King Tiger’, save for a failed diesel-Electric engine for the first Tiger, and being wrongly credited for a less-produced turret for the Tiger II.
In fact, Porsche did very little besides coming up with the terrifyingly dangerous ‘Maus’ tank – which unfortunately never saw action, and only saw production in the form of one complete prototype, which was immediately destroyed by terrified Soviets, and one incomplete, turretless prototype which was fitted with the scavenged turret of the destroyed tank and stuck in a Russian museum.
In fact, whilst we’re on the topic, the claim that every Sherman Tank in the film was an E8 model is completely ludicrous. You can clearly see in the scene with the Tiger that the last Sherman to be destroyed in the fight before Fury knocks out the Tiger – I think Brad Pitt’s character referred to the commander of the tank as ‘Roy’ – is just a stock M4A3 Sherman – this is obvious by the stubby-barreled M1 75mm Medium-Velocity gun it has. All the M4A3E8 model tanks were equipped with the 76mm High Velocity gun, models M1A1C or M1A2, depending on how close to the end of the war.
It’s also kind of silly to say that it was a bad thing that American tanks were generally only improved upon where they need to be. All you need to do is look at the fact that during the war, about 1,500 combined Tiger I and Tiger II tanks were produced – compared to about 50,000 Sherman tanks. You may say ‘Oh, well, the Tiger tanks were good enough to beat those odds’. And you’d be wrong. Using the correct ammunition, a 76mm gun could sufficiently penetrate the front armor of a Tiger.
A Tiger tank had 120mm of frontal armor at it’s strongest point. At 1000 meters, a Sherman tank using relatively standard late-war M93 High Velocity Armor Piercing rounds could defeat 135mm of armor.
The British Tank Hunter variant of the Sherman, the VC Firefly, with its Ordnance QF-17 pounder – the most lethal gun of the war, capable of penetrating 230mm of armor from 1km firing Armor Piercing, Fin-Discarding SABOT ammunition- was an even greater example of this. That’s sufficient to defeat the frontal armor of literally every German tank or armored vehicle in the war, with the exception of perhaps the Maus, if using lower-grade ammo.
Instead of wasting money constructing overly complex tanks, the Allies just changed the minimum that they needed to get the job done, and kept churning these tanks out in overwhelming numbers.
On another note, this actually proves the movie to be blatantly inaccurate, as the first shot from Fury’s 76mm gun should’ve done to the Tiger exactly what the Tiger had done to the other Shermans, especially in those hits on the turret or side armor – unless the tank was using ammunition from significantly earlier in the war. Considering that the movie quote ‘Takes place days before Germany’s surrender’, this is unlikely. This seems strange, but then you need to consider that tank warfare often occurred at much greater than 1000 meters, and you can see why the Tiger maintained its fearsome reputation.
When it comes down to it, Hitler’s obsession with over-the-top powerful tanks was unnecessary. All they needed was a basic tank with sufficient armor and size to mount the lethal 88mm flak, or their own version of the 76mm High-Velocity gun which was mounted on the Panther – actually a more powerful gun than the 88mm flak. What they didn’t need were over-engineered, difficult to produce, slow moving tanks like the Tiger. In fact, the Panther is probably the best tank of the entire war. Fast, sufficiently armored, relatively easy to produce, and packing one hell of a punch.
Hope someone read my rant at least. Just a military-obsessed junior high student with a bit too much holiday time xD
By: Grim Looters on December 14, 2015
at 7:04 pm
Over-engineered? Germans? 😉
By: Jerry Garrett on December 14, 2015
at 8:53 pm
Both Porsche and Henshel submitted tanks for the 45 ton heavy tank project. Both were built around the Krupp turret. Porsche built 100 of their tanks with the gas/electric hybrid drive but because of copper shortages the Germans went with the Henshel design. 91 of the Porsche tanks were modified into the Ferdinand tank destroyer. They were quite effect at knocking out Soviet tanks up to 3 km away. However they didn’t have any secondary armament or gun ports. The Ferdinand was a slab sided monster with 200mm of armor and weighed 65 tons. The main weakness of the Ferdinand was it’s lack of secondary armament. Infantry could destroy them with molotov cocktails and hand placed explosives. The surviving 50 Ferdinands were retro fitted with a commanders cupola, improving 360 visibility, a ball machinegun mount in the bow for anti-infantry, zimmerit paste for magnetic mine protection and knock out gun ports in the hull and wider tracks. Raising the weight to 70 tons. These were rechristened Elefants. The hybrid engine was problematic and more Ferdinands were destroyed by their own crews rather then let them fall into enemy hands. Two survive. One captured in Kursk is now in a Moscow museum and one Elefant captured in Anzio and is now on display at Ft. Lee. Both are non-operational.
The Shermans used in the movie were an M4A3E8 (76)W HVSS Sherman tank from the Bovington Tank Museum named as Fury, Lucy Sue, an M4A2 Sherman, ‘Matador’ an M4E8 (76)W HVSS, ‘Murder, Inc.’ an M4A4 Sherman and ‘Old Phyllis’, an M4A1 (76)W Sherman. Post war modifications that were pretty radical were the M50 and M51 Shermans used by the IDF. Most were refitted with Cummins diesel engines and the M50 had a more powerful 75mm french made gun. The M51 went even more extreme with a 105 mm cannon. Then new cannons were so heavy a counter weight was added to the rear of the turrets. M51s were used in the movie The Big Red 1 as german tanks.
When it comes to over the top German tanks you should read about the Ratte. A proposed 1000 ton monster with two 28 CENTIMETER naval guns. Thats 280 mm (actually a 283 mm cm SK C/34 naval gun) used on Scharnhorst-class battleships. They were even built into a naval style turret on a 115 foot chassis. Hitler order development to begin in 42 but Albert Speer stopped it in 43 before a prototype could be built.
By: Patrick Bowers on December 19, 2015
at 7:47 am
where is the fury tanks location now that was used in the movie?
By: rick on January 9, 2016
at 4:32 am
I believe everything used in the movie remains in England.
By: Jerry Garrett on January 11, 2016
at 7:04 pm
the sherman fury from bovington museum is not an M4A3 easy 8 but and M4A2 easy 8,its powered with a gm twin diesel engine.
By: willy on February 13, 2016
at 1:50 pm
First off. You have no idea whether he’d be driving a E8 or not. American tank crews were upgraded as the war progressed. And especially if their tank has been incapacitated and replaced with a new model. Not once in the movie does he say that the tank had been service as long as he had. The only mention is that the crew had stayed together. Says “This is home” but he isn’t exactly talking about the tank. While he’s formed an attachment to the E8 and it is “home” he’s also talking about what it stands for. America. The country he’s fighting for. Freedom. Etc. That is what he is saying when he says “This is home.” Next up. You said that he wouldn’t have been fighting a Tiger 1. There are hundreds of photos of Tiger Ones that were used all the way up until the end of the war. So your basis there is also flawed. Just because the Germans replaced the production of the Tiger 1 with the Tiger 2 and or models doesn’t mean that older models were withdrawn from service and scrapped. They most certainly would have kept using them. That would also account for why older Sherman variants were still used towards the end of the war.
By: Shelby on March 18, 2016
at 6:27 pm
“earlier model M4 Sherman, like an M2 or M4A3”.
M2? I think you meant M4A2. It was not used by the American forces in the NE European theater.
M4A3? I think you meant M4A3 75 dry VVSS? It was a model used in training.
In my opinion, the movie production had done a great job in using a historically accurate tank.
By: Albert Chen on April 5, 2016
at 9:03 pm
They tried.
By: Jerry Garrett on April 9, 2016
at 4:22 pm
Jerry I have to agree they tried and with fairly accurate equipment and of all the movies thru the years along with “Sahara” with Humphrey Bogart in his Lee, this one was still well done. I also would have like to have seen our boys in the new T-26E Pershing supported by Sherman’s as they actually did, because there were only a couple dozen by then.
It’s a damned shame the politics and General Staff’s idea “we won’t need them now, the war will be over by Christmas” kept them from being introduced sooner and seeing action at the Bulge. I think we’d had a better fighting chance and our overall losses would have been far less and alot more of our boys would’ve come home!
By: Tim Logan on May 11, 2020
at 4:07 am
Would like to see Warner Bros re-release ‘B.O.B.’ with (correct) CGI Tiger 2’s. .
By: Da Han on April 16, 2016
at 3:48 am
Enter your comment here..Hello Jerry.
Finally finding a rare wordpress blog that I can relate to (besides my own) I thought I’d leave a comment and make some observations. A few tidbits in the movie did impress me; noticeably the apparent realism of the tracer cannon and machine fire for one. A search to explain that realism somehow brought me here and so far I have only become more distracted.
Viewing the “film” on computer allows me stop action and inspect individual frames in detail. For example, in the Fury’s ammunition hamper the head stamps (on the bottoms of the brass cannon rounds) were authentic and detailed. As you would expect from 70 yr old ordinance coming from a museum – no two head stamps appeared to be the same however. Once or twice in the movie Brad yells “put some Willie Pete in there” (meaning incendiary white phosphorus).
In a short scene about midway through the movie the four tanks are driving through an open field and everyone looks up into the sky. Somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000ft a huge formation of B-17 bombers were making white streamers in the contrail belt. In the few short seconds of this scene one could just barely make out the contrails of a hand full of German interceptors preparing to attack from head on. These were quality special effects.
About the tanks there is little that I can add to what’s been said. Your first commenter (Leigh Miller) talked a lot about the Sherman Firefly. From what I have gathered from a short and informal Internet search: these were gunned by the British 17-pounder anti-tank gun, and motored by a lackadaisical and heavy, 30 cylinder Chrysler A57 multibank engine. Chrysler A57s were put into 7,499 M4A4 Medium tanks (most of which were “Lend Lease”).
Glancing at the Wikipedia page for the movie I was surprised by some facts about the actors. For example the CPT “Old Man” Waggoner was played by the same actor who played the nefarious Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter films. Jason Isaacs is thoroughly English but his faked Bronx or Jew Jersey accent was convincing enough to fool me. The actor that played “Coon-Ass” has probably never been to Louisiana in his life. Jon Bernthal was born and raised in Washington, D.C. and is Jewish. SGT Miles who manned the .50 on the back of Brad’s tank and was later killed while waking on the sidewalk was played by Scott Eastwood (Clint Eastwood’s son).
Perhaps tomorrow the weather will be calmer and less windy, so that I can endeavor in less distractive pursuits.
.
By: cactusbush on May 3, 2016
at 4:12 am
Thanks for your contribution! Very interesting.
By: Jerry Garrett on May 4, 2016
at 10:30 am
Just to clear up some misconceptions. The Sherman was really meant as an infantry support tank and not for tank on tank battles. The M18 Hellcat was the real tank destroyer and had the gun to combat the German tanks while it had very little armor but was the fastest armored vehicle of the war. The Germans never learned how to mass produce tanks and many of the parts for German tanks had to be field modified to work when repairing individual tanks.
Of course both the Americans and Russians produced tanks by the 10s of thousands and usually had at least a 10-1 numerical advantage over German tanks.
The Germans had the highly effective anti-tank gun the 88, and also had the most effective infantry anti-tank weapon the Panzer Faust which although very short ranged could defeat any tank on the battlefield. The Panzer Faust was not a rocket propelled weapon but was launched by a static charge in the launcher unlike the US bazooka which was a rocket propelled weapon.
By: somepeople shouldnotreproduce on June 22, 2016
at 7:04 am
I think that the American rocket wizard Robert Goddard thought up or helped produce the first rocket propelled, grenades during the First World War and this eventually became the Bazooka. I don’t know the particular details about the shaped charge warhead the Bazooka’s projectiles used. I do know that that a company that I once worked for named Schlumberger still uses shaped charges every day to perforate oil wells, and was making shaped charged anti-tank mines in WWII. The Germans recovered dropped Bazookas from Russian (Lend Lease) and North African battlefields, and were impressed with the weapon. A short time afterward the Germans introduced, first their own “Panzerschreck” and later the single shot “Panzerfaust”. The Panzerschreck was bigger and better in most every way to the Bazooka. It had a shield with a little window to protect the face of the shooter and it was deployed with a two man crew. Then there was that spring loaded PIAT that the British used.
By: cactusbush on June 26, 2016
at 7:49 pm
Just a couple of points …
Firstly it’s a muzzle brake, not break
Secondly, the Tiger tanks we’ve all heard about were designed by Henschel. Porsche did put forward a ‘Tiger’ design to carry the specified 88mm gun, but instead of having an engine to drive the vehicle directly, the engine was a generator and drive effected by means of electric motors. An ingenious system hampered by the short design timescale, which failed to iron out the problem of the whole system catching fire on a regular basis. The same problem plagued the Ferdinands/Elefants which tended to catch fire at the mere sight of an incline.
By: Ma9x on September 6, 2016
at 10:29 pm
Total bs. The allies would never have been able to deliver a tank as large and heavy as one of the German heavies across the beaches into Europe, at least not in number. Designing a tank that could go toe to toe with a tiger would have been a huge mistake logistically.
And yes, one on one a medium Sherman was at a disadvantage against the few much heavier panther and tigers, but tank on tank combat was rare. 95 percent of U.S. tankers never saw a panther or tiger.
The biggest threat to American tanks was German anti tank artillery (the StuG), mines and infantry carried shoulder fired anti tank weapons. Losses to other tanks was small. The kill ratio difference against German tanks was mostly due to the fact that the Germans were on the defensive. Fighting from a dug in or concealed defensive position against advancing tanks was a much bigger advantage than any element of tank design.
Add to the calculation by asking : how many allied infantry were saved because they had plenty of reliable and ready armor that could travel with them? Something the Germans could never manage ! German armor relied on rail networks to get anywhere near the battlefield, something the allies had none of.
Would having a heavy tank help the allies in Europe? Yes, but would disrupting the manufacturing and supply chain to do it been a net positive? Not on your life!
By: bobzbob on October 3, 2016
at 1:59 pm
Interesting insights! Thanks for sharing.
By: Jerry Garrett on October 3, 2016
at 2:45 pm
Most enjoyable blog. Now I ‘ll have to do some research for my self.
By: Phil Sewell on October 6, 2016
at 3:53 pm
They never suggested that the easy 8 in the movie was the same Sherman that the crew had in North Africa, or even in France. It was a replacement.
By: Milton ODell on February 2, 2017
at 2:18 am
1) never rely on Hollywood to “tell the truth” about anything.
2) thanks to the “Greatest Generation” for being an inspiration for the rest of us.
3) thanks to all of those who have ever worn an American serviceperson’s uniform for their service. Also, their families. We owe a debt to them we can never repay.
4) thank you for an interesting article.
5) the movie was entertaining, but not a historical documentary.
By: EB on February 23, 2017
at 2:01 am
Valid points!
By: Jerry Garrett on February 23, 2017
at 5:30 am
Jerry,
Really Good and interesting article,
– But the Ronson lighter bit was actually pretty inaccurate.
Shermans of the early 1944 time frame are scarce because lots of them were scrapped after the war, modified by other countries post wwII, etc..
There aren’t a whole lot of PZ IVs or t34/76s left either, and a whole lot of those were made during WWII.
The M4 was actually an excellent tank for it’s intended role.
Survival rate for the US tank crews was significantly better than those of their German counterparts, but apparently tactics for the British while using the m4 may have lead to somewhat higher crew losses.
Nicholas Moran – a US army Major and tank commander (and a Wargaming employee)- researched and analyzed the performance of the M4 in battle and completely debunked the myth that the M4 was a huge fire risk and a crew killer – by using real numbers and facts (Technical information, battle reports, etc.).
By the way, both the panther and tiger were also gasoline (petrol) fueled tanks like most M4 mediums. Both of the German tanks were good tanks in their time but they were not mechanically reliable. Also of note, the type of fuel had less far, far less to do with the likelihood of a crew dying because of a fire than a fire caused by the chain reaction ignition of the propellant of the stored ammunition. The “easy 8” M4E38 tanks were used and available in fairly significant numbers late in the European theater, and they did have the wet ammunition storage that Major Moran mentions. These later M4 variants did provide for a significant part of the Allied armored force used early in the Korean war.
Here is the link to Nicholas Moran’s exceptionally well done presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY (well worth watching!) Enjoy!!
In addition it is notable, that the use of the term “It was known as a Ronson Lighter because it lights every time” would most likely not have been attributed to the M4 in WWII since Ronson lighters did not use the advertising slogan “lights every time” until after WWII.
The brits actually may have called an early prototype version of their Churchill crocodile flame thrower tank a Ronson because it used a ronson lighter as part of the ignition system for the flame thrower.
Another analysis which includes sections specifically addressing Belton Cooper’s (decidedly negative) book about the Sherman.
http://knowledgeglue.com/dispelling-myths-surrounding-m4-sherman/
And this from the perspective of a Russian tanker crewing a Sherman in WWII:
http://knowledgeglue.com/was-the-m4-sherman-really-that-bad-a-soviet-perspective/
I think this will add to the discussion above. I know you are primarily an automotive and travel writer, but I also am pretty sure you would want to accurately portray one of the better tanks of wwII, and a definite contributor in the Allied victory over the Axis powers.
By: kcm36b2 on February 23, 2017
at 3:18 am
Thanks for adding your insights, and for taking the time to write.
By: Jerry Garrett on February 23, 2017
at 5:32 am
Army veteran’s new book on the M4 Sherman tank scandal-
“For Want Of A Gun: The Sherman Tank Scandal of WWII”
By: Christian M. DeJohn on March 10, 2017
at 6:40 pm
The Canadian tank that you refer to is Holy Roller…Located in Victoria Park in London On, my home town. Great article, thank you.
Cheers, Heath.
By: Heath Trollope on March 19, 2017
at 7:32 pm
Wow. That is great information. Thank you!
By: Jerry Garrett on March 21, 2017
at 3:09 am
A lot of great information here. Good read. I wanted to add my little bit of info to the discussion. Keeping in mind that the M4 was built in the US and shipped into the different theaters, it was beneficial to keep it smaller and lighter than it could have been. Heavier tanks would have taken longer to build, more difficult to transport, and fewer could be supplied to forward units. The M4 was designed so well, that even though it was being manufactured by different companies, most parts were interchangeable. A huge plus in a combat zone. Remember, just about everything had to be shipped from the states. And as mentioned earlier, it was designed as infantry support, not to take on main battle tanks.
The M4 also had a gyro stabilized main gun. I know not all crews were up on its use, but in the hands of a trained gunner, it would allow the tank to shoot without having to stop. Not sure if a Tiger I could do that or not. In the movie it is shown firing its main gun while in motion.
On catching fire, previous posters are correct. The propellant in the ammunition, not gasoline was what burned. For a gas fire, I’m told the M4 had a very good fire suppression system.
Something I always found interesting but never see in discussions is the turret motivation system. The M4 had an electric motor to traverse the turret. It could be activated by either the gunner or commander. The electric motor was much faster than the PTO systems used in the German tanks. My father, a veteran of the 4th armored division, 3rd Army from 1944 to the end of conflict, guessed that the M4 turret was twice as fast as anything he saw on a German tank. This gave the crew an advantage when acquiring multiple targets in quick succession.
One question…is the only difference in an M4A3E8 and the M4A2E8 the engine? The A2 designation being diesel?
I’m not an authority on the M4, but I have been a BIG fan for many years. As designed, the M4 with all it’s variants, was a huge asset to allied forces around the world. I’ve also had the honor of spending many an hour at the tank museum in Bovington, Dorset in the UK. I highly recommend a visit. But if you like tanks, plan on spending the entire day there.
I apologize for any mistakes I may have made. Thanks for your time and interest.
By: Bob the Engineer on February 13, 2018
at 8:31 am
“And as mentioned earlier, it was designed as infantry support, not to take on main battle tanks.”
It is a common myth that US tank doctrine said that “Tanks fight infantry, TDs fight enemy tanks”. US tank doctrine actually used TDs in ambush and similar defensive roles. Yes, the tanks supported the infantry, but think, they aren’t going to run across a Pz. IV while pushing a trench and say, “Nope, we can’t shoot that, gotta give it to the TDs…”. Killing enemy tanks is part of supporting the infantry. If the enemy tank is a threat, kill it!
“The M4 also had a gyro stabilized main gun. I know not all crews were up on its use, but in the hands of a trained gunner, it would allow the tank to shoot without having to stop. Not sure if a Tiger I could do that or not. In the movie it is shown firing its main gun while in motion.”
Yes, the Sherman had a stabilizer (only vertical axis). It was more suited for keeping the gun on target while pulling out from behind cover, not while charging at full speed. It was only useful up to a certain speed, which the tanks engaging the Tiger seemed to have exceeded. Indeed, the Tiger did not have a stabilizer.
“My father, a veteran of the 4th armored division, 3rd Army from 1944 to the end of conflict”
Salutes to him.
“guessed that the M4 turret was twice as fast as anything he saw on a German tank. This gave the crew an advantage when acquiring multiple targets in quick succession.”
It’s a fairly accurate guess, but a Panther A/G at top performance could outturn a Sherman.
“One question…is the only difference in an M4A3E8 and the M4A2E8 the engine? The A2 designation being diesel?”
Yes, and associated changes to the exhaust and air intake systems.
By: Hugo Yu on April 27, 2018
at 8:28 pm
Not all the us tanks in fury are easy eight tanks. Theses on one true easy eight. In the sceen where there are 4 us tanks firing on 88’s. There is still least 3 different tanks used. It’s easy to see the narrower track of the m4 used and also a casted body on the other.
By: Wade on April 11, 2018
at 7:11 am
This is from Sft.Melford M.Smith a Sherman Tank Commander in Gen.Patton’s army thruout WW2 from 1942 (trained at Ft.Bliss & Mohave desert) all the way thru to Germany 1945> He’d learned early to stay up in the turret so IF hit by antitank he’d be blown OUT of the turret by rush of gas from blast> Survived 7 tanks knocked out in war> Crew lost> Looked like a bowl of spaghetti & meat balls> buried entire tank crews in vet cemetarys, mixed up
Gen.Patton overcame German Armor w/superior tactics where THICKNESS OF ARMOR was IRRELEVANT> used to this day, he MASSED his Shermans to LOB shells TOT (Time on Target) to a distant Panzer & SMASHED it into the DESERT (Wheels came off) U could have FEET of ARMOR but when a TRUCK LOAD of STEEL drops on U from out of the sky, sorry, but you’re DONE FOR & your Panzer becomes a Shambzler (but the Armor’s still intact WTF)
Patton was held in reserve at Kasseraine Pass> Smitty said it was like a football stadium w/flash bulbs goin off along ridges/hills 88s After Germans left Patton retook KP to find dead G.I.s stripped naked, wrapped w/barb wire to fences by SS & with ALL digits blown off (Noses, Ears, Fingers & Nards) so he ordered remains left In situ’ so his troops reviewed remains of buddies & knew what they were up against, that “Surrender is NOT an Option” Then he told troops, we’re going to return the favor, blow away ALL SS as they were “Demons loosed upon Earth” & s/b exterminated> He did
Patton split his forces into TWO Armys on 12Hr shifts & chose to do combat 24/7, “Lets see how good they R after a week of no sleep” Then drove his Armys south into the Sahara at El Guetar, “Let Rommel try to flank me here” & setup around a defilade in desert to use Artillery to steer German Armor into a KILL ZONE w/walls 20ft high> Sgt Smith did a painting I have of El Guetar where he says EVERY German was ANNHILATED> 100s using Sgt York tactic of fire off 50rnds of M/G and wait but don’t fire when enemy came out> wait until ALL exposed then HOSE ‘EM DOWN from behind as Patton had Tanks fitted w/TWO 1000rnd cannisters for this purpose In the painting U see a greay smoke haze filling the valley> German Panzers had been fighting for years in desert w/o retrofit so their engines were wearing out form desert sand storms
By: Roger E Carmichael on October 27, 2018
at 8:26 am
Interesting details. Thanks.
By: Jerry Garrett on November 13, 2018
at 3:04 pm
Hey guys, all and all about 50% of all that has been posted here is total bullshit.
Like the “story” about Patton in North Africa, never heard this before and I don’t believe there were any SS troops in Africa. And TOT (time on target) was not used by tanks, that was used by the artillery arm.
Some good points, like the Tommy Cooker (Sherman), it not being the gasoline but the ammo cook-off. The M4A3 in all its variations was reserved for USA use only. It had a Ford V8 engine (so low driveshaft, roomier turret) and was the safest Sherman, the ammo was stored under the floor in “wet” bins. The other Shermans storied ammo in the sides above the tracks, very bad part of the design, note the “applique armor” welded on them, that was where the ammo was kept.
By: Paul Heiser on July 15, 2019
at 10:01 am
To state “Americans stupidly did little in that regard.” is to show that you have done very little research into the American approach regarding tank production for the allies in WW2. I will not waste my time educating you, instead, leave it to you, should you desire.
As for the tank in the movie surviving years on the battlefield….I could be wrong, but, I don’t remember it being said that the crew kept the same tank, since Africa. “Wardaddy” did state they had BEEN TOGETHER, since Africa,but in the same tank, I don’t recall. Yes, he called it home and had a relationship with it, but, it is never stated that it was their only tank.
Unless the movie utilizes CGI, I think people will have to accept that, 75 years later, there are not a lot of WW2 fighting vehicles of any type left and some substitutes will have to be made. Earlier moved, Kelly’s Heroes perhaps, don’t have quite the excuse, aside from the cost of acquisition.
That’s all I have, 5 years later.
By: Randy on January 7, 2020
at 5:13 am
Actually some of the Shermans were M4A2E8s. Further, the tiger is not accurate – it is part of the so- called “initial” batch, quite different than the early, mid and late models. Indeed, no initial tiger was in combat at this time, and none made it out of the eastern front …
By: MICHAEL MARLES on March 31, 2020
at 7:09 am
well, to critize a movie supposedly full of errors, your article it is commiting the same sins…
#1 “If the movie was based on a real character – and supposedly it is not – Collier would not have been driving an Easy Eight. And he wouldn’t have been fighting a German Tiger Tiger”
Although the Brad Pitt’s character wasn’t directly based on a real person, the production team and the director himself, have stated that they got some inspiration from the history of Staff Sgt. Lafayette “Wardaddy” G. Pool and his “in the mood” M4A1 sherman tank and Audie Murphy MoH citation. The characters, their background and the combat scenes portrayed in the movie are pretty close to the actions of these soldiers in real life (including the highly critized last battle scene).
#2 “Supposedly, they’ve all been fighting together – in Fury – since the North Africa campaign in 1942. If that was so, Fury would have probably been a much earlier model M4 Sherman”
In the movie it was NEVER stated that they fought in the same tank since 1942. Yes, the crew members make mention that they have been together since North Africa, but they never affirm they have had the Fury since then, they just tell how they been in combat together, even when Gordo tells their history about the falaise pocket, the actual tank is never mentioned.
#3 “I believe the tank used in the movie had a Ford engine…”
The fury tank in reality is a M4A2E8 powered by the General Motors 6046 12-cylinder twin in-line engine, not the Ford GAA v8. Even the Bovington Tank Musseum presents it with that designation in its official site:
https://tankmuseum.org/tank-nuts/tank-collection/m4-sherman-fury
#4 “The American tanks in the movie – ten were used – were all M4A3E8s and all came from the Bovington Tank Museum”
WRONG
There were used 5 sherman tanks, not 10, From these american tanks, just 2 were provided by Bovington Musseum, the rest were provided by diferent private collectors: a M4(105) HVSS with an M4A3(76) turret (named Matador in movie) from Jeep Sud Est, a M4A1 (76)W (named Old Phillis in movie) from Bovington Tank Musseum, a M4A2(75) (named Lucy Sue in movie) from Tay restorations, a M4A2E8(76)W (originally Ron/Harris renamed Fury for the movie) also from Bovington Tank Musseum, and a M4A4(75) (named Murder Inc) from Adrian Barrell private collection.
#5 “So why use (possibly) the wrong tank in a movie that insisted so much on realism and authenticity (okay, other than the men’s haircuts)?”
The movie is already filled with a lot of historical accurate details, like proper era uniforms and equipment, realistic weapon props, realistic scenario sets, hell even the map shown before the beetfield scene was based on real ww2 U.S. Army maps; besides, the movie was plagued with a lot of references to historical events, wartime photographs, veterans testimonies and documented data that were reflected in several parts of the movie, its dissapointing that such details were missed by a lot of wehraboos, like you, when critizing this movie like sheeps “muh hollywood!”.
#6 your last statement just shows your complete ignorance on the tank design doctrines of the allies and axis countries during WW2, and the whole article just makes clear you get your info from wikipedia and community opinions from WoT forums…
By: PredatorAnytime on October 5, 2020
at 9:22 am
Wrong, this was an m4a2 not a3
By: jonny on February 20, 2021
at 6:32 am
Fury is not an M4A3E8 Fury is an M4A2 (76) W with HVSS. The E8 mortification was a designation to any experimental vehicle using that particular modification. In this case the HVSS suspension. They say we have been together since Africa they never mention that they were using that specific tank and a large number of tank platoons were upgraded to new tanks if there’s was damaged.
By: Taylor on May 10, 2021
at 1:36 am
I enjoyed the movie and loved Brad Pits performance. I serviced as a Tank Commander in the Vietnam War. Call sign Iron Horse 15, my tank was a M48A3 Patton. Tank name (gun barrel) “LSD”. I was 6’ 175 lbs. Very few if any historical accurate could ever be made anything five years or older. Just enjoy the best effort movies.
By: Gary Flora Sr on October 18, 2021
at 12:35 am