A single hit could turn a WWII Sherman tank into a burning trap in seconds — and the crew had only moments to escape.

Outside the town of Neneig, Germany in January 1945, a Sherman tank took a direct hit from a Tiger.

Gus Stavros was close enough to watch what happened next.

The crew tried to get out.

They came through the hatches burning.

Stavros, a combat veteran by then, had seen men die before, but this was different.

They were on fire from the waist down, clawing at the turret ring, trying to pull themselves free.

One man made it to the ground and rolled in the snow.

The others did not make it out at all.

Stavros later described the scene during an oral history interview for the National Endowment for the Humanities.

He kept it short.

He said he had seen movies where people come out of a tank all a flame and that he saw exactly that in person outside Neneig.

To understand why this kept happening, why five men in an armored vehicle could burn alive in seconds, you have to understand what it was like inside the machine that was supposed to protect them.

The M4 Sherman carried a crew of five.

The driver sat in the left front of the hull, low behind a thick glacius plate, steering with two levers and watching the world through a narrow periscope slit.

To his right sat the assistant driver, officially called the bow gunner, operating a 30 caliber machine gun aimed by tracer through his own periscope.

He had almost no field of fire.

This was the entry-level position.

Most new replacements started here, learning the tank from the least important seat.

Above and behind them, separated by the turret basket, sat the three-man turret crew.

The gunner controlled the 75 mm main gun and a coaxial machine gun firing both with foot switches.

His view was limited to what his gun sight showed him, a narrow magnified circle of the battlefield.

He could not see what was beside him or behind him.

The loader worked to his left, pulling shells from racks and feeding the breach.

On early models, the loader had no hatch of his own.

He shared the commander’s exit.

The commander stood or sat at the top of the turret, directing the crew by intercom, calling targets for the gunner, routes for the driver, and coordinating with other tanks by radio.

He was the only man who could transmit.

To do his job properly, he needed his head and shoulders outside the hatch.

This made him a target for everything from machine gun fire to shell fragments.

Statistically, the tank commander was the most likely crew member to die.

The five of them lived, fought, slept, and ate within this space.

They slept in a row alongside the hull under a waterproof tarp.

In combat, they stayed inside for hours.

Spent shell casings rolling on the floor served as makeshift urinals.

Oil and grease soaked into uniforms and skin, and never fully washed out.

Every time the main gun fired, the breach kicked back.

Hot brass clanged across the compartment floor and a cloud of toxic propellant smoke filled the turret.

The crew breathed it in until the ventilator cleared it.

If the ventilator was working, constipation was almost universal.

Illness spread easily.

The intercom failed regularly.

When it did, the commander shouted or kicked the driver’s shoulders to signal direction changes.

The noise from the 400 horsepower engine and the tracks on pavement or frozen ground made normal speech impossible.

This was daily life.

Five men sealed inside 33 tons of steel, dependent on each other for survival, unable to see most of what was trying to kill them.

But the discomfort was not what Sherman crews feared most.

What they feared was all around them.

71 rounds of 75 mm ammunition packed into every available space inside the hull.

And when a German shell punched through the armor, those rounds were the first thing to catch fire.

After reports of frequent fires reached the United States from North Africa and Europe, the army decided to find out what was actually causing them.

They ran two separate sets of trials.

In the first, they took Sherman tanks, drained all the fuel and oil, but left a full loadout of ammunition inside.

Then they fired anti-tank rounds into them.

90% of the penetrations that reached the fighting compartment or turret caused a fire.

In the second set of trials, they did the opposite.

They removed all the ammunition, but left fuel and oil in place.

They fired the same rounds into the same areas.

The tanks did not burn.

The conclusion was unambiguous.

It was not the gasoline.

it was the ammunition.

This contradicted what most crews believed.

The Sherman ran on a 400 horsepower gasoline engine, and tankers assumed that the fuel was what turned their vehicles into infernos.

The Germans called the Sherman Tommy Cooker, a reference to British soldiers in a trench stove from the First World War.

Polish crews called it the burning grave.

The most famous nickname was Ronson after the cigarette lighter, supposedly because it lit up the first time, every time.

Though that particular slogan was almost certainly a post-war invention.

The Ronson Company did not begin using it until years after the war ended.

The nickname may have spread through veteran circles long after the fighting stopped.

But the real cause had nothing to do with fuel at all.

It had everything to do with how the ammunition was stored.

On early model Shermans, 75mm rounds were placed in unprotected racks throughout the fighting compartment.

Shells sat in open bins along both sponssons, the bulging sections of the hull above the tracks.

More rounds were stacked around the base of the turret within arms reach of the loader.

Additional ammunition was stored on the floor and near the assistant driver.

The layout was designed for fast access in combat.

A good loader working with a good gunner could get off two or three aimed shots in rapid succession, a significant tactical advantage.

But it meant that ammunition surrounded the crew on all sides.

There was almost no place inside the tank where a penetrating round would not hit a shell or its propellant charge.

When an armor-piercing round punched through the hull, the impact did not simply create a neat hole.

It sent fragments of steel, spall, ricocheting through the interior at high velocity.

If those fragments struck a propellant charge, the result was not a slow fire.

It was an explosive event.

The propellant detonated almost instantly, generating temperatures that ignited adjacent rounds in a chain reaction.

The turret could be blown off the hull entirely, launched into the air by the force of the blast.

In less catastrophic cases, the fire filled the fighting compartment within seconds.

The army tried CO2 fire extinguishers.

They proved useless.

The chemical reaction in a propellant fire was too fast and too hot for carbon dioxide to suppress.

Only large quantities of water could fight it, and there was no water system inside a Sherman.

This was the core of the problem.

The Sherman was not uniquely flammable among tanks of its era.

The German Panther burned 63% of the time after penetration.

The Tiger burned 80% of the time, though, from a tiny sample of only five tanks examined.

A British study of the Normandy campaign found that 56% of Shermans knocked out in combat burned.

An American survey put the figure at 65%.

The numbers were bad, but they were not dramatically worse than the competition.

What made the Sherman’s reputation worse was the speed and violence of ammunition fires compared to engine fires, which gave crews far less warning and far less time.

That time, or rather the lack of it, was what separated survival from death.

When a Sherman’s ammunition cooked off, the crew had roughly 15 seconds.

Some positions had a way out, others did not.

And the difference came down to a few feet of metal, a hatch that opened the right direction, and whether the man ahead of you was still alive or blocking the exit.

British researchers ran timed experiments on Sherman and Cromwell crews to measure how fast each man could get out.

The commander, starting from his open hatch, could reach a standing position on the turret roof in 2 and 1/2 seconds.

The gunner climbing past the commander seat and through the same hatch took 5 seconds.

These were control tests.

No fire, no smoke, no incoming rounds, no wounded men in the way.

In combat, the numbers meant almost nothing.

The problem started with the turret basket.

On early Shermans, a mesh screen encircled the turret ring, separating the three turret crewmen from the two hull crewmen below.

The basket was designed to protect arms and legs from being caught by the rotating turret, but it also created a wall.

When the ammunition detonated and the turret filled with fire, the driver and assistant driver could not climb up into the turret to reach the commander’s hatch.

They had to go down through a single escape hatch in the belly of the hull behind the driver’s seat cut into a half-in thick plate of armor.

The belly hatch was not designed for speed.

It was small, awkward to reach, and often blocked by equipment stored on the floor.

A man had to drop through it, land on the ground beneath 33 tons of tank, and crawl out without being seen by whoever had just fired on them.

If the tank was on fire, the clock was already running.

If the driver was wounded, he blocked the assistant driver’s only way out.

If the turret had been hit and the basket was jammed or deformed by the impact, the turret crew had no path to the belly hatch either.

The loader on early model Shermans had no hatch of his own.

He had to wait for the commander or gunner to clear their exits before he could climb out.

In a propellant fire, which was not a slowly building blaze, but an instantaneous explosive event, waiting even 3 or 4 seconds could mean the difference between secondderee burns and death.

Crews adapted.

Many tankers went into battle with their hatches unlatched, held in a partially open position by leather straps tied from inside.

The hatches clapped loudly on the march and let shrapnel into the tank, but the crews accepted the trade.

An open hatch meant one fewer obstacle between them and survival.

Some units drilled evacuation until it was automatic.

Others received almost no training at all.

The statistics reflected the difference between a tank that burned and one that did not.

Across the US First Army, the average Sherman that was knocked out but did not catch fire cost its crew 0.

78 casualties, killed and wounded combined.

A Sherman that burned cost 1.28.

The fire nearly doubled the human price.

One case recorded by British researchers near the Rine in 1945 illustrated the extreme.

A Sherman was crossing a canal bridge when a 105 mm shell from a flak 38 struck its side.

The round traveled through the entire crew compartment and blew a jagged foot-twide slab of armor out the opposite side as it exited.

The tank caught fire instantly.

The men inside were engulfed.

Only the driver and the commander survived.

Three men died in a space they could not leave fast enough.

That was one tank, one crew.

But there was a division that lost Shermans at a rate no one had planned for.

And one officer whose entire job was to reach the wreckage, open the hatches, and deal with what he found inside.

If this story is keeping you here, a like and a subscription will make sure you see what comes next, because the numbers from the third armored division are something else entirely.

The Third Armored Division was one of only two heavy armored divisions in the United States Army.

It landed in Normandy on June 24th, 1944 with 232 M4 Shermans.

Over the next 231 days of combat from the hedros of France through Belgium into Germany, the division had 648 Shermans completely destroyed.

Another 700 were knocked out, repaired, and sent back into action.

That was a loss rate of 580% of the division’s original strength.

The math was simple and brutal.

Every Sherman the division started with was destroyed almost three times over.

The only reason the division kept fighting was that replacements arrived faster than tanks were lost.

American factories Ford, Fiser, Chrysler, Pullman were producing Shermans at a rate the Germans could not match.

Nearly 50,000 were built during the war.

There was always another tank.

There was not always another crew.

The division’s 16,000 soldiers suffered 2540 killed, 7,331 wounded, 95 missing, and 139 captured.

Trained tank crews were consumed faster than the replacement system could produce them.

Men arrived from other branches.

Some had never been inside a tank before reaching the front.

The crew that had trained together for months, learning each other’s rhythms, anticipating movements, building the trust that kept five men alive in a metal box was replaced by strangers who did not know where the fire extinguisher was or how to find the belly hatch in the dark.

Belton Cooper saw all of it.

Cooper was 27 years old, an ordinance officer assigned to the third armored division’s maintenance battalion.

He was an engineer by training.

Two years at the Virginia Military Institute, two more at the University of Michigan studying marine architecture.

His job was not to fight in tanks.

It was to get them back after they had been destroyed.

As one of three ordinance liaison officers, Cooper carried the daily combat loss report from combat command B to the division maintenance battalion.

The report was too sensitive to transmit by radio, so Cooper drove it alone in a jeep through what he called the void.

The void was the stretch of territory between the front lines and the supply trains, sometimes as wide as 50 mi.

Allied armor advanced so fast that it bypassed pockets of German resistance.

Cooper drove through those pockets every day.

When he reached a knocked out Sherman, the work began.

If the tank had brewed up, tanker slang for a catastrophic ammunition fire.

The interior was destroyed.

The white factory paint on the walls was burned black.

The instruments were melted, and the crew, or what remained of them, was still inside.

Cooper and his maintenance crews had to remove the remains, patch the holes in the armor, replace damaged components, and repaint the interior.

Then the tank went back to the front with a new crew.

Cooper later said that the restored white paint was important, not for aesthetics, but because the new crew needed to believe the tank was clean.

They needed to not see what had happened to the men before them.

He did this for 231 days.

He probably witnessed the destruction of more Sherman tanks and their crews than any other single person in the war.

50 years later, at the age of 80, he sat down and wrote a book about it.

He called it Death Traps.

But what Cooper saw from the outside, the aftermath, was only part of the story.

To understand why so many Shermans were lost, you had to look at what was firing at them and from where.

Because the Sherman’s biggest problem was not always its armor.

It was that the enemy saw it first.

In Normandy, the threat did not come from where most people imagine.

Postwar mythology placed the Tiger tank at the center of every engagement.

In reality, a British battlefield study conducted after the costly fighting around Khan, found that German tanks and anti-tank guns accounted for nearly 90% of all Shermans lost.

But within that figure, concealed anti-tank guns, not tanks, did the majority of the killing.

The Bokehage made it worse.

The hedro country of northwestern France was a network of ancient field boundaries, thick earthn walls topped with dense vegetation, each one a natural fortification.

A German 75mm anti-tank gun could sit behind a hedro invisible at 200 yards and wait.

The Sherman had to come to it and the Sherman was not hard to spot.

It stood over 9 ft tall, nearly a foot higher than a Cromwell, significantly taller than a Panzer 4.

Its profile was visible above hedge that concealed lower vehicles completely.

After the breakout from the Vocage, the situation changed but did not improve.

In open country, American tank units engaging German defensive positions at longer ranges sometimes took 50% casualties before anyone in the column could identify where the fire was coming from.

The average combat range for tank versus tank action on the western front was 800 to 900 m.

At 500 yd, a British study found the chances of a German gunner missing a Sherman were small.

And once the first round was fired, the crew’s survival probability hald every 6 seconds.

The Sherman’s own gun made the problem worse.

American 75mm ammunition used a high flash propellant that produced a visible burst when fired.

German gunners could spot a Sherman’s muzzle flash at considerable distance, even when the tank itself was partially concealed.

The crew’s first shot announced their position to every anti-tank weapon in range.

The 88mm gun mounted on the Tiger tank and on the Flack 36 and Flak 41 anti-aircraft guns repurposed for ground combat could penetrate the Sherman’s frontal armor at ranges well beyond what the Sherman 75 could answer.

The Panzer Foust, a cheap disposable infantry weapon, could be fired by a single soldier from a ditch or a window at close range and punch through the Sherman’s side armor with ease.

A hollow charge warhead did not need velocity.

It needed only contact.

The crews did not wait for engineers to save them.

They improvised.

Some units collected spare track links from damaged tanks and welded them to the hull and turret.

Extra steel that might in theory trigger a shaped charge before it reached the armor underneath.

The results were mixed.

The additional weight strained the suspension and slowed the tank.

And there was no clear evidence it reliably stopped anti-tank rounds.

One improvisation actually worked.

The 75mm gun carried a white phosphorus round originally designed as an artillery marker.

Crews discovered that when the burning phosphorus struck a Tiger or Panther, it blinded their optics.

The acrid smoke was sucked inside through ventilation openings, making it impossible for the German crew to breathe.

In several documented cases, German crews abandoned functional tanks because they could not see or breathe.

Five men in a Sherman with an inferior gun had found a way to defeat a superior tank.

Not by penetrating its armor, but by making the air inside it unlivable.

But improvisation could only go so far.

The fundamental problem, ammunition stacked in unprotected racks, required an engineering solution, and by the time it arrived, the men who needed it most were already fighting in dry stos across France.

The first attempt at a fix came fast.

Engineers welded 1-in thick applique armor plates onto the sponsson sides directly over the ammunition bins.

The idea was simple.

An extra layer of steel to stop fragments from reaching the shells.

On late production cast hull tanks, the thicker armor was built into the casting itself.

The modification was offered as a field kit to units already deployed and eventually incorporated into production lines and overhaul facilities, but there was doubt it made any real difference.

A round powerful enough to penetrate the main hall armor was unlikely to be stopped by an additional inch of steel bolted over the same spot.

The army knew the armor patches were not enough.

The real problem was location.

As long as ammunition sat in open racks at shoulder height throughout the fighting compartment, any penetration had a high chance of starting a fire.

The shells had to move.

The first step was removing the most dangerous rounds, the unarmored ready rack around the base of the turret, where shells were stacked within the loader’s reach.

These were the fastest to access, but also the most exposed.

Engineers reduced the size of the floor ready rack and added armored doors.

The turret screening, the mesh basket that had separated hull and turret crews, was removed as well, partly for safety and partly because it improved the crew’s ability to reach the belly escape hatch.

But the real transformation came with the shift to wet stowage.

All main gun ammunition was relocated to the floor of the hull directly beneath the turret.

The rounds sat in steel racks surrounded by a doublewalled jacket.

The space between the two walls was filled with a mixture of water and glycol, an antifreeze compound that prevented the liquid from freezing in winter.

The concept was tested in stages.

The first design used a simple water- fil container around the ammunition rack.

When testers fired an anti-tank round into it, hydraulic action from the impact tore the entire rack apart.

The water transmitted the shock wave instead of absorbing it.

Engineers redesigned the system using concentric cells, individual tubes nested inside outer tubes with the water glycol mixture filling the gap between them.

A pocket of air was left at the top of each cell.

This time, when a shell struck, only one cell ruptured.

The liquid poured out over the damaged area, cooling the propellant before it could ignite.

Out of 14 ammunition cells punctured by 37 and 75 mm rounds during testing, only two caught fire.

The results in the field matched the laboratory.

A 1945 US Army study concluded that only 10 to 15% of wet stowage Shermans burned when penetrated.

Dry stowage Shermans burned 60 to 80% of the time.

The modification cut the fire rate by roughly a factor of five.

It came at a cost.

The water jackets added 900 lb to the tank’s weight.

The ready rack, the ammunition the loader could reach without opening floor hatches, shrank to just six rounds.

Total ammunition capacity actually increased to 150 rounds, but accessing them in combat was slower.

The loader now had to open armored doors in the floor, pull shells from below, and work without the turret basket that had once given him a stable platform.

The first wet stowage Shermans M4A375W models began reaching frontline units in late summer of 1944, followed by the M4 A376W and the heavily armored M4 A3E2 jumbo.

Many British Shermans never received the upgrade.

Many American crews in Normandy fought the critical early months in dry stowage tanks.

Stavros watched Sherman crews burn outside Neneig in January 45.

By then, wet stowage tanks existed, but not every unit had them, and not every crew that got one knew that the men who had fought in the same seat 6 months earlier had done so surrounded by unprotected ammunition at arms length.

On the other side of Europe, another army was fighting in Shermans, too, and their experience with the same tank was remarkably different.

Dimmitri Loza was born in 1922 in the Shvchenkovski region of Karkov Oblast to a Ukrainian peasant family.

He entered the Soviet army in 1940 and graduated from Saratov Armor School in 1942.

His first tank was a British Matilda delivered through lend lease.

His second was an American Sherman, the M4 A2.

Powered not by the gasoline engine that American crews used, but by a pair of General Motors six-cylinder diesel truck engines mounted side by side.

Soviet tankers called it the Mcha, a phonetic shortening of its Russian designation, Mchidia.

Loza would fight in Mchas from the fall of 1943 through August 1945.

He commanded a tank battalion in the 233rd tank brigade of the fifth guard’s mechanized corps.

He had three Shermans destroyed under him during the war.

He survived all three.

His unit fought across Ukraine into Romania through Hungary into Czechoslovakia and finally to Vienna.

After the German surrender, the brigade was shipped to Mongolia, crossed the Gobi Desert, and attacked the Japanese Quan army in Manuria.

Loza was awarded the title Hero of the Soviet Union for his leadership during the battle for Vienna.

What makes Loza’s account valuable is what he praised and what he criticized.

He praised the Sherman’s reliability above everything else.

The Soviet 6th Guard’s tank army determined that their M4 A2s lasted 2,00 to 2500 km before major overhaul, comparable to the T-34.

But the Sherman required far less daily attention.

It had an auxiliary power unit that kept the batteries charged without running the main engine.

On the T-34, crews had to start the engine just to maintain battery charge, burning fuel and engine hours for no tactical purpose.

Loza also praised the 76 mm gun on later models and the quality of American optics.

His criticisms were specific and practical.

The Sherman sat too high.

Its center of gravity made it prone to tipping on uneven terrain.

The narrow tracks designed for European roads sank in the mud that defined the Eastern front for months at a time.

The T-34’s wider tracks handled soft ground far better.

Soviet crews learned to compensate, but the height remained a problem they could not fix.

A tall tank is a visible tank, and a visible tank attracts fire.

But on the question that defined the Sherman’s reputation in the West, fire, Soviet crews had a different experience.

The M4 A2 ran on diesel, not gasoline.

Diesel is harder to ignite than gasoline, and its vapor is less volatile.

More importantly, the Soviets received many of the later production Shermans with wet ammunition stowage already installed, and Soviet logistics meant that crews often carried less spare ammunition than their American counterparts.

Fewer rounds inside the hull meant less fuel for an ammunition fire.

Loza noted that Soviet tankers appreciated one thing about the Sherman that their own T34 did not offer.

It did not explode as violently when hit.

The T34 had a different problem entirely.

Diesel fuel leaked from internal tanks and pulled on the floor of the fighting compartment.

It soaked into the crew’s uniforms during refueling and maintenance.

When a T34 caught fire, the fuel saturated clothing ignited, and burning diesel caused deeper, more severe burns than burning gasoline.

Gasoline burns its vapor first.

The flame sits above the skin.

Diesel burns directly on contact.

Soviet tankers who escaped a burning T-34 often carried worse injuries than Americans who escaped a burning Sherman.

A crew bailing out of a burning tank on the Eastern front faced another problem their Western counterparts did not.

In open step, there was often no cover within running distance.

Soviet accounts describe crews taking shelter under their own burning vehicle.

the only object large enough to hide behind while enemy fire swept the ground around them.

Loza’s memoir was not published until after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For decades, official Soviet accounts minimized or ignored the role of Lindle’s equipment.

Only after 1991 could a Soviet veteran publicly praise an American tank.

When he did, the picture he painted was not of a death trap.

It was of a dependable machine that kept running when it mattered.

But dependable did not mean safe.

And the question remained, if the Sherman burned so often, if it was so easy to kill, why did more of its crew survive than almost any other tank of the war? The number should not have worked in the Sherman’s favor.

It burned more often than its defenders claim and was knocked out in enormous quantities.

Yet, when researchers compared crew fatality rates across the major tanks of the war, the Sherman came out ahead.

Overall, 24.

6% of Sherman crewmen died when their tank was destroyed.

For the T34, both the 76 and 85 mm versions.

The figure was approximately 28%.

On the T-34, the loader had a 39% chance of dying.

The driver 28%.

Even the radio operator sitting in the safest position had a 10% chance.

In the Sherman, the casualties were distributed more evenly and more of the crew walked away.

A 12 Army Group report quoted by historian Steven Zaloga found that the average knocked out Sherman cost one man killed and one man wounded.

British battlefield studies from the fighting around Ken produced similar results.

Roughly one killed and two wounded per tank destroyed.

After wet stowage arrived, that number dropped further to one killed and one wounded.

The Polish first armored division under General Stannislav Machek fought through France, Belgium, and Germany with mainly dry stowage Shermans and some Cromwells.

The division lost tanks at a heavy rate, particularly during the battle of Filets.

But General Macheek noted something that surprised him.

For every five tanks destroyed, approximately one full crew, five men, was killed.

The losses were serious, but the Division ended the war with a surplus of trained tank crews relative to the number of tanks it had left.

More men survived than machines.

The reason was not armor.

It was not firepower.

It was hatches.

The Sherman had more escape routes and larger openings than nearly any tank of its era.

The commander’s hatch was wide.

The driver and assistant driver each had their own overhead hatches big enough for a man wearing a full kit to pull himself through in seconds.

The belly escape hatch gave the whole crew a way out even when the turret was on fire.

Later models added a loader’s hatch.

Compare this to the T34 where the radio operator had no personal hatch at all and had to wait his turn behind the driver.

Or the KV heavy tanks with only two hatches for five or six crew members.

Hatches that sometimes jammed from hull deformation after a hit.

or even the Panther, which gave every man his own exit, but was so mechanically unreliable that crews often never reached the battlefield at all.

The Sherman was not designed to be invulnerable.

It was designed to be escaped.

Belton Cooper did not see it that way.

He saw the wreckage.

He saw the interiors.

He saw what was left of men who did not get out in time.

For 50 years, he carried those images.

In 1998, at the age of 80, he published Death Traps.

The book became one of the most widely read World War II memoirs in America.

Steven Ambrose wrote the forward.

David Ay used it as one of the inspirations for the film Fury.

Historians later pointed out that Cooper wrote from memory without consulting primary sources and that his perspective shaped by the maintenance battalion, not the turret, was narrow.

Steven Ziloga, who spoke with Cooper many times, said the book offered a limited view of American tank operations, but he did not call it worthless.

Cooper had earned his perspective.

He had scraped human remains out of more Shermans than any historian would ever study.

49,324 Shermans were built between 1942 and 1946.

They fought in North Africa, Italy, France, Belgium, Germany, the Pacific, and the Eastern Front.

They were driven by Americans, British, Canadians, Poles, French, Soviets, and a dozen other nations.

After the war, they kept fighting.

In Korea, in the Arab-Israeli wars, in South America, the last ones were not retired until the 1970s.

The men who crewed them are almost all gone now.

The ones who burned and the ones who got out.

The ones who climbed into a freshly repainted tank and tried not to think about why the paint was fresh.

The ones who learned to sleep with one hand on the hatch release.

If their story meant something to you, hit the like button and subscribe and tap the bell so you do not miss what comes next on this channel.

Let us know in the comments where you are watching from, your country, your city.

And if you had to choose, knowing everything you know now, would you have climbed into a Sherman? Drop your answer below.

These stories stay alive because people like you keep passing them