Spot the alternative tank facts


Thank you to the “Church of Comfort” lads for pointing this out.

Wargaming paid a sponsored article on the -Alien’s- History channel about tanks facts and dont have to elaborate much further on it for you to know what’s coming. I will leave you to your own devices and see if you can spot all the alternative facts.

It is too early in the morning here for me to even look at it.

Liked it? Take a second to support Rita Sobral on Patreon!
Spot the alternative tank facts

22 thoughts on “Spot the alternative tank facts

      1. Well the fire thing wasn’t really a myth. The Sherman was one of the best tanks of the war and compared to others of that category it had one of the highest breakdown rates and the vast majority was due to some sort of fire. The thing is though they are cheap, easy to manufacture and replace especially with the american industry at the time. So it didn’t really matter.
        The fearless charging t34 is a myth because the dead drive slumped onto the controls.
        Or ‘tigers break down all the time’ myth. In complete opposite context of the Sherman. The early models of Panthers and tigers had their issues but they were quickly phased out and soon became the famous German model of reliability. The problem is…if even a single one of these breaks down it costs an enormous amount of time, money and resources. Which Germany did not have at that stage of the war. Also because Germany was by this time on the back foot a broken down tank was abandoned. Whereas if an American or Soviet tank broke down they advanced past it so no one would see the broken down tanks near the front line.
        It’s all a matter of perception compared to fact.

      2. This is directed at Havoc199.

        The M4 Sherman had one of the highest breakdown rates and due to fire? I sure hope you have a fucking source for that crap.

        The fire myth came from Belton Cooper’s Death Traps book. All he saw was burnt Shermans because that is only what he was exposed to in his duty. Also because the enemy kept firing at them until they burnt to make salvageAny fire in an M4 came mostly from being shot at which ignited the ammo.

        But it did not burn any more than any other tank which got shot and penetrated. But with the introduction of the wet ammo rack, and training of crewmen to not stuff ammo everywhere, the chance of fire from a hit in an M4 dropped drastically.

        The M4 Sherman was and always were reliable from the first versions to the last.

        And that’s a lot more BS “perception compared to fact”. The Americans always kept track of numbers of “broken down” or “abandoned” vehicles. They didn’t just ignore it. Any Shermans that broke down, which is rarely, would be a statistic collected by the Army, but would also be recovered, fixed, and sent back to battle.

        I mean really, just watch The_Chieftain’s vid on Myths of American armour. There are actually primary sources with stats.

      3. #Havoc199 that was only true during the first few months of their service in WWII, mainly because of the tanks usually carrying too much ammo that was generaly poorly stored, on top of that there was also an issue with engine oil, this has been confirmed many times whenever someone has dispelled the many myths about the Sherman

        lastly there’s one thing most fail to realize, the fact that most of the destroyed Shermans were burnt down was not because fire was the cause for it to be knocked out of action, it is simply a case that in the battlefield you do not stop firing at a target until you are absolutly sure it’s knocked out, it is also a fact that the Germans had orders to keep shooting until the enemy tanks burned (confirmed by historian/author Hilary Doyle) just like how they had orders to booby-trap their own tanks in case of needing to leave them behind

        this all checks out with the simple fact that most of the US Army tank crewman died outside their tanks doing many other tasks (could be repair, scouting, etc) than inside (and also had less casualties than the other allies and the Germans), if the Shermans caught fire that often you would expect the number of deaths being closer between inside and outside the tank, especially in earlier Sherman variants that did not have enough hatches

      4. #SpectreHD
        The_Chieftain has recently said that he was not totally accurate in his claims about the reliability of the Sherman, he corrected his statement by saying the Sherman was as reliable as any other tank without major flaws and that the main diference having been built to be quickly repaired and also, unlike most other nations, the fact that the Shermans arrived in the frontlines with a vast supply of spare parts that allowed quick repairs and inflated the perception of the reliability of the Sherman being vastly superior, in reality it was only just a bit more reliable than the next tank in the list of reliability

        if I am not mistaken he said that in the recent «Chieftains Hatch» video where he made a review of the work done so far in the “series”

        that of course does not make the myths to be true

  1. WGandFacts says:

    * Sham II is barely an armoured car, definitely not a tank…
    * “Robots” is just an attention seeking word. “Automation”/”Support system” is less click-baity.
    * “Recreational” tanks…? For those fun Sunday drives…? Surely they meant “reconnaissance”.
    * Rail guns! Whee, and an a platoon of batteries to power it. But ofc, if we start using that alien tech we have we can do it…
    * Russia does not have 20k MBT, but then again, WG is Russian propaganda made into a game so no surprise there.

      1. WGandFacts says:

        Ok, but then they include retired tanks with possible service re-entry and retired tanks that are to be scrapped. And if they do, they def count a different way for USA. But Stalinmath, best math! 😉

      2. Anonymous says:

        during the Cold War, the Soviets had to keep so many more tanks around because they knew half of them would be inoperable and needed to field equal numbers to NATO.

      3. well, the number of tanks the Americans have is also wrong, they have sold less than a third of the M1’s they produced and haven’t lost that many, they should have in total around 5000 Abrams (including those in reserve, like the early M1’s)

  2. Entertaining. Somebody should send this pearl of historically accurate information to Yuri Paskolov. If I were in his boots, I might face slam the person(s) responsible for this into the tanks they are confusing. Repeatedly.

  3. The Churchill did NOT play a major role at the 2nd Battle of El Alamein. There were 6 there. They did well, and possibly saved the tank from being restricted to training duty, but they did not play a major role.

  4. wolvenworks says:

    reminds me of Horrible Histories. this would get a kid interested in tanks

    on another note, Sham 2 with PS controls? good luck hitting anything without aim assist on a console controller

Leave a Reply