How Many Sherman Tanks Did It Take To Kill A Tiger Tank?

In this video we look at a common myth when it comes to Tanks and the Second World War. During the conflict and afterwards, a myth has arisen that you would need at least 5 Sherman Tanks to be able to knock out the infamous German Tiger Tank. The legacy of the Tiger is of a hugely superior vehicle and much more deadly than that of a American M4 Sherman. However what is the real story behind the effectiveness of the Sherman?

There were different variants of the Sherman for example, but could the M4A1 for example, the early versions easily knock out a Tiger? In this video we consider if the Sherman could take out a tiger, and also look briefly at the Sherman firefly, the variant that comprised of the 17 Pounder British Gun which was more than a match for the fabled German Tiger. So join us today as we look at, 'How Many Sherman Tanks Did It Take To Kill A Tiger Tank?'

Thanks for watching! Support the channel by subscribing, liking, and sharing.

Disclaimer: All opinions and comment stated below in the Comments section do not represent the opinion of TheUntoldPast. All opinions and comments and dialogue should discuss the video above in a historical manner.

TheUntoldPast does not accept any racism, profanity, insults, sexism or any negative discussion aimed at an individual. TheUntoldPast has the right to delete any comment with this content inside it and also ban the user from the channel.

Music by: I am a man who will fight for your honour by Chris Zabriskie

[GaryVills]

The whole 5 Sherman thing is an outcome of the fact allied units operated 5 tanks to a squad, so you never saw more then 5 Sherman’s together unless it was a major offensive

[jd.]

A Sherman didn’t need to take out a tiger. The tiger’s thirst for fuel and high maintenance requirements did that just fine!

[yourenotperfect.]

"How many Shermans does is take to kill a Tiger? "

Tanks don't have hit points in real life.

[chrishoff]

A German tank could sometimes be defeated by a Sherman firing white phosphorus smoke shells. Either the German tank crew believed they were being targeted for artillery or airstrikes by the smoke shell, or that super toxic burning white phosphorus vapor would get drawn into the ventilation and burn their lungs. Sometimes it set the leaky fuel lines on fire. At the very least it temporarily blinded them.

[chrishoff]

It came from a calculation done by American automotive engineers after they inspected the first examples of captured Tigers in N. Africa. They calculated they could deliver 8 M4 tanks to the battlefield for every Tiger the Germans could deliver. They also calculated they would lose 4 M4s for every knocked out Tiger, therefor they would win with the 4 remaining M4s. They also determined the Tiger was unsuited for mass production, that the Germans could only produce a max. of 50 heavy tanks per month.

[dapperfield]

The thing is people think tank battles are something like war thunder when they’re not. First scouts are sent ahead of the main force for reconnaissance. If enemy armour is spotted, it’s either bombarded by artillery, strafed and bombed by fighter bombers, or a tank destroyer is sent to deal with the threat. Tank on tank battles were very rare and the one who spots the other first usually wins, an advantage the allies had due to air superiority.

[Space_Man]

One 76mm Sherman could kill it with tactical strategy, a t-34/85 could kill a tiger by its front at a specific distance, both could definitely kill each other, it all relies on strategy.

[enigma]

I seem to recall an American Greyhound armored car taking out a Tiger from behind at less than 50 yards with three AP rounds from it's 37mm gun, from an ambush position..

[marrvynswillames]

i never understood this myth, peopel think that any Tiger would destroy 5 Shermans before being destroyed or that every time the americans spotted one Tiger they would call 5 Shermans?

[paulrobbins]

The 76mm sherman could actually penetrate the frontal armour of the tiger easily if it wasn’t angled too sharply. It actually struggled a lot more against the panther, which had more effective frontal armour due to its slope, although it could penetrate its turret.

[youtubesurfer]

Tiger was a heavy tank the Sherman was a medium tank does anyone else notice the problem here?

They are two different types of tanks with two different doctrines it would be more genuine to compare a Sherman to a panther.

[KillerT-Bone]

The Sherman was is an extremely underrated tank. Just because German tanks had thicker armor and more powerful guns doesn’t mean they were better. The Sherman had far better mobility and survivability than the Tiger, alongside reliability which all late war German vehicles struggled with.

British reports from Sherman vs Panther engagements show that for every one Sherman lost, eight Panthers were lost. There was even a report of a Sherman destroying three Panthers in one engagement.

So overall, I’d say the Sherman was the superior vehicle.

[nrich]

The fact remains if you were in front of a Tiger up to 3000 yards and he saw you, you were toast. There is a YT video about one of the later tank battles within Germany - the Allied tank operators were very discouraged with the inferiority of Allied tanks vs German tanks. They knew that front to front combat was almost always suicide as they lost a lot of tanks. Also at D-Day there was 20 Shermans sent out one day - only 2 came back - they were very inferior in armor and guns except the Firefly. The 76mm upgraded canon on the Sherman required special armor piercing ammo to be effective and this was in critical short supply so so much for the upgrade. Also it should be noted that later versions of German armor had inferior metal due to shortages back home and the tank crews were increasingly young recruits with little training and even less experience. The US produced close to 50, 000 Shermans while the German only produced only 1, 347 Tiger I and 492 Tiger II tanks. The Germans were always facing a never ending flood of Shermans. Also the US had complete air superiority which greatly hampered resupply for the Germans. Fuel - ammo - parts - replacement personnel were always in short supply. Many German tanks were abandoned in the Battle of the Bulge after they ran out of fuel . The bottom line was you did not want to face a Tiger from the front in any Allied tank because of the power of the 88mm gun .

[iansneddon]

Wonder why no one asks how many German armored cars it would take to take out a Sherman. If the Americans knew they would be encountering a Tiger they would likely send in tank destroyers including M36 models with 90mm guns. Late in the war they were equipped with a few high-velocity armor-piercing (HVAP) ammunition capable of penetrating 150mm of armor out beyond 3, 000 yards. They were in short supply so an M36 might at best have just a few HVAP rounds. But probably quite enough when a few M36s go up against a lone tiger tank.
You get Shermans fighting Tiger tanks because the Americans fought with what they have available on that part of the front and they had so many Shermans that they were pretty much everywhere.

[serveandprotect]

It's all very relative and there are no easy answers - there never will be. The Germans had no more than 90 "Tigers" (mostly "A" variants with few Tiger "B"-s) models in the French 1944 campaign and - due to the fact that they had to be almost continuously checked upon, at least (give or take) half of them was always at the rears of the front, doing maintenance. On the other side you had a Sherman" which - an experienced mechanic's crew could go a depot and BUILD ONE from ready to use, spare parts, so what are we even comparing? You start a batte - on one side you have (as an examplee!) 6 Panthers, 2 or 3 Tigers and 8 Panzer IV's - on the other you have a HUNDRED "Shermans". The losses are equally distributed - say ... 50% on both sides! - looks like a win for the German right? Problem is the Germans do not even have spare parts for the tanks they lose in action, because Hitler favoured the production of new models over spare parts. The Allies lose 50 tanks - SO WHAT? - the next day they start at it again and the Germans will be still at 50% strenght (...AT BEST!) while the Yanks still deploy 100 Shermans. You cannot win wars going on like that - no matter how "superior" your tanks are on paper.

[ChArLiE-chaz]

why does this guy sound like a british burger king foot lettuce chills guy

[howardhughes]

Franz Staudegger of an SS battalion in Kursk destroyed 22 Russian tanks, 17 were destroyed with armour piercing rounds, the other 5 with HE (High Explosive) rounds. So it was 22, not 50.

[casualarson]

1 is the quick awnser, but really it depends on 1: is it an easy eight/firefly or a plain 75? 2: who shot first? 3: where did they shoot the tiger?

[TTTT-oceb]

As far as pure tank vs, tank combat goes, only some 50 Tigers were lost on the Western Front while being credited with around 700 Allied tanks, the vast majority Shermans. So, more than 10:1 kill ratio. Source: Tigers in Combat 1 & 2, a diary of all Tiger units. On the Eastern Front around 300 Tigers were lost in tank vs. tank combat while being credited with more than 8000 Soviet tanks and assault guns. So yeah, it took MORE than 5 Allied tanks to knock out one Tiger - even if we only give the Tigers half the number of credited kills. Many of the Tigers lost were knocked out by tank destroyers/assault guns and not standard Shermans and T-34s.

[tapatbulldogginwithFerdinand]

If you notice too. The Sherman is more rounded. Easier for deflecting the shots from the Tigers. So alot of Sherman tanks got lucky too.