ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ค. 2022
- Join & Support The Channel for more perks : / @factbytes
The German Army introduced the Tiger 1 tank in 1942 which sent the Allied forces into a frenzy.
The need to overcome the German armour was becoming more apparent to the British Army and led to the development of new radical vehicles.
Due to delays and difficulties with the entirely new designs of the Cruiser Mark VIII Challenger and Cromwell, the British government were open to the idea of modifying an existing tank.
The British Army used Sherman tanks extensively during the war. Though they anticipated the development of their own tank models shortly the 17 pounder installation in the Sherman was eventually accepted despite initial government opposition.
After solving the challenging problem of fitting such a large gun in the Sherman's turret, the Firefly was put into production in early 1944 in time to equip Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery's 21st Army Group for the Normandy landings.
The nickname Firefly was adopted due to the bright muzzle flash of the main gun.
The 17-pounder was a formidable weapon that it gave the Firelfly a real punch on the battlefield.
The Sherman Firefly was possibly the most valuable tank in the hands of British and other Commonwealth commanders as it was the only tank in the British Army capable of reliably penetrating the frontal armour of Panthers and Tigers at standard combat distances in Normandy.
best tiger killer is still fuel shortages and breakdowns
Also to strafe the fuel wagon that the tiger would tow behind it.
Incorrect. The largest single cause of Tiger destruction was AP shot. Also tanks abandoned by panic-stricken fleeing German soldiers are still destroyed tanks. We should praise those men who were so frightened of the advancing M4s that they took to their heels and ran (as fast as their little jackboots would allow) for the temporary safety of the Rhine.
NO that's why they upgunned and carpet bombing devestated Falaise like it did Dresden and Hamburg
@@michaelkenny8540 Totally. I get so sick of hearing about how hopeless Allied tanks were against the Germans. An abandoned tank is a dead tank. End of story.
Or a Hawker Typhoon.
Love the collaboration between the US and UK during the war. The P51 with the Merlin engine, The Sherman with the 17 pounder gun. Plus the cavity magnetron and jet engine technology.🇬🇧🇺🇸
Good cooperation most of the time , but not always by egotistical generals.
The Yanks were offered Fireflys and like with other "funnies" declined them!
@@johndcorcoran6550 the Yanks had their own 75 mm later on in the war ,plus we were able to make stronger tanks late in the war such as the M26 Pershing and super Pershing
British ingenuity and intelligence and US production speed and volume was always going to win the war
@@westpointsnell4167 And the M26 Pershing was developed at the same time as the British Centurion, which is widely regarded by Armour Historians as the best tank of its day of all time, and one of the best all round tank designs ever produced.
It's true that the Firefly was far from perfect - just like the Hawker Typhoon. Equipment developed and produced in the middle of a war rarely achieves perfection - but it doesn't need to do so. All it has to be is *good enough* to get the job done - and both the Firefly and the Typhoon, for all their weaknesses, proved to be 'good enough'.
Very true. Good enough delivered in quantity when it is needed is vastly superior to perfection delivered late.
True Jack why the US -Patton mostly didn't do the same is a head scratcher. The War Department had the Pershing, but the M26 suffered from an extended design and development process as well as political infighting among the U.S. Army's leadership. It or the firefly could have been developed in greater numbers and much earlier had the designers/Generals had to spend a day at the front - actively engaged
@@bigwoody4704 As a Brit, I'm always pleased when I read the Firefly being praised. But I also think you're probably right. The Firefly, working in combination with ordinary Shermans seems to have been very effective.
However, the WW2 USA military still did fine without the Firefly. I think the significance of these powerful tanks is overstated. And the significance of tanks which used high explosive against soft targets is understated.
@@thomasstyan2066 good post,the allied maintenence units in the field were doing splendid jobs considering the conditions and constant movement
@@bigwoody4704 Thanks :)
Respect to any country's tank operators. Those guys have balls of steel to be in a cramped environment and having the biggest guns trained on you.
The Firefly Sherman tanks were well crewed. This also made a difference.
The Firefly tank have a 75 mm long barreled gun with the right amunition. This allowed to destroy any tank from distance 800-1000 meters. This is enough to end the era of the germans tanks.
Not necessarily, many were crewed by troops with zero battle experience such as Wittmans Killer - Ekins who had only fired 1 round prior to that engagement where he destroyed 3 Moving Tigers at between 800-1100yds with four shots
@@albowie2544 Not true. Many of the British tank crew - I’d venture to suggest most - were survivors of North Africa. Read James Holland’s book, _”Brothers in Arms”._
@@albowie2544 Wittman’s Tiger was almost certainly stopped by a Canadian Firefly.
@@albowie2544 There was one Firefly crew from the Sherwood Rangers that destroyed a Tiger, two panthers and two Panzer IVs in a single day.
5:46 painting the bottom half of the barrel white isn’t “dazzle camouflage”, but rather “counter-shading” to erase the telltale shadow formed on the lower half of round objects, similar to animals such as deer.
Dazzle camouflage was used on WW1 ships to make it more difficult to estimate their direction and speed of movement, similar to a zebra’s stripes.
damn bro
I've never heard of any of that type of camouflage, and it looks pretty cool in the photos/videos here.
Yeah it's so the Germans also have a hard time identifying the long barrel on the Firefly. They would target and destroy the fireflies first in the column because they could see the long ass barrel so they painted them like that so they looked more like the regular Shermans. Some even had fake muzzle breaks installed in the middle of the barrel too to confuse Germans iirc.
That 17 pounder was a monster. It turned a reliable workhorse into an assassin
As long as it does not get hit by the Tiger’s 88.
Uh yeah if the JagdPanther is abandoned by it’s crew on the side of the road and the 17 pounder knocks on the door at 500 yards …sure .
Wittmann killer say no more. Totally underrated. A proven tank design with a gun that could match if not better than the Tiger1s 88mm
Not right, as much as I'd like it to be. Wittman had five tigers, three were knocked out on his right front by a firefly engaging at 1000-1200 yards from their right front (gunner named Elkin, I think). Those tanks couldnt see wittman and his remaining tank which were hidden by a gently rising spur down the far left (western side) of the field.
Wittman and his other tiger were engaged by a canadian unit, armed only with sherman 75's, as no canadians had fireflies. Wittman was hit in the upper left rear hull at a range of approx 150 yards, which caused a total flame out and decapitated the tank. The remaining tiger was destroyed near the same time at a range of 200 yards, with what could only have been a near frontal hit with a 75mm round, this tank was some distance to wittmans left rear.
As an aside, americans like to compare their 76mm to the 17lbr gun, and like to argue the alleged inaccuracy of the sabot round. The reality is that the sabot round wasnt issued until late september, early october 44, well after normandy. All the 17lbr and firefly kills till then were made using APCBC or APCR rounds, including the first two king tiger kills on the very first day of the king tigers in combat (both reported as panthers at the time, which gives an idea of the range they were engaged at).
The initial accuracy issues with the first design of the APDS rounds were caused due to unclean separation of the sabot from the core, this was corrected fairly shortly after it was identified by modifying the sabot petal design where it fitted together and into the baseplate of the projectile, and more importantly for penetration and overall accuracy by redesigning the core itself into the bodkin design.
Concerning the comparison to the 76mm US gun, the reality was that the US gun was 76mm in name only, it was actually a 75mm calibre projectile, although different design and length to the 75mm short projectile used in the sherman 75s, obviously with a longer case and more propellant. That said though, the 17lbr cartridge, although a true 76mm calibre, carried a propellant load several kilos more than the US 76mm round (which was labelled as 76mm to avoid confusion with the 75mm round, and possibly to avoid demoralising the troops). Arguments about accuracy and killing power regarding the 17lbr simply don't hold water...the gun could kill anything put in front of it in WW2, and proved it was more than capable of destroying soviet armour into the late 1950's during the Arab-Israeli war of '56.
Everyone hears about Wittman and his Tiger...but Germans often had this same thing happen to them. Surprise is usually the big factor. The Firefly was definitely a good tank killer and the other Sherman crews would often put fake barrel extensions on their guns because they believed it would cause the German tank crews to hesitate.
Kelly's Heroes!😊
The opposite was the case. Firefly crews tried to hide and camouflage their long barrels because they were usually target numero uno.
Surprise was the main factor. First spot = first shot.
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Firefly crews did that....regular Sherman often did the opposite. Even the most veteran German tanker would hesitate if he saw a whole platoon of long barreled Shermans.
@@davidbarr9343 What kind of land mine is it?
THE KIND THAT BLOWS UP!!!
@@davidbarr9343 "Like, all we can do is SCARE 'em, man..."
Here's a fun fact....the 6 pounder actually had a decent record of knocking out overconfident Tigers and Panthers. Note that knocking out a tank is not the same as destroying it. The famous Tiger 131 was knocked by a 6 pounder.
It didn't penetrate but jammed the turret and the crew abandoned their tank and ran. This very crew had never been invited to veteran reunions of the battalion ... 🙂(true story !)
The most important difference between the Panther and Tiger was the side armor. An outflanked Panther was just another medium tank, the Tiger was still a tough nut to crack for the 75mm and 6-pdr guns unless you had a near perfect angle.
The Germans never had a chance against democracy....like the Russians today...
Tiger 131 wasn't knocked out, it was disabled and was abandoned by the crew.
Men, in 1944 in Rússia, a company of Panzer lll (4 Panzer) , with the long high velocity 50mm gun, Destroyed 26 T-34.
A Panzer lll.
When you have a very good crew, even a far less potent machine, can do serious damage.
Its just to see the Stug3 status. The greastet tank killer of the war. And inferior in many aspects to Allies Tanks. But with the most sucsseful AT gun of the war. The pak 40 75mm
The firefly was a frankenstien type creation that filled a need and it did so very well, all things considered, price, transportability, reliability, ease of maintenance and adaptability the Sherman in any format was the best tank of ww2
However my favourite tank is the Cromwell, the turret aside it looks completely modern, extremely low profile and very fast 40+ mph and with the bug 17 pounder gun and decent armour.
@@twinscrollturbo4410 Aiant that comet?
@@twinscrollturbo4410I love the Avre type/modification 😊
Working on the fly to create something to take on the Tigers & Panthers was an amazing feat!! The mother of all invention is still necessity😎🇦🇺👍
It was thought putting a seventeen pounder in a medium tank was impossible and the Firefly idea was almost stopped in the board room. The argument was won by William Watson providing Claude Gibbs with the drawings of the Australian Sentinel tank, which had been fitted with the seventeen pounder in 1942. The Sentinel it's self was only produced in small numbers with six pounder guns so, it's major contribution to the allied war effort was helping with the development of the Firefly. 😎👍
The Israeli even mounted a heavier gun, a whopping 105mm gun that can even knock out T54/55 series tanks.
"It's a wasted trip baby. Nobody said nothing about locking horns with no Tigers"
Woof woof. And no more negative waves.
Gotta love Odd Ball
The only way I got to keep them Tigers busy is to LET THEM SHOOT HOLES IN ME!
Kudos to the Brits with their Firefly Sherman 17 Pounder tanks made for a creative solution to engaging Tiger and Panzer tanks. This resourceful modification and good tactics won the day.
Kudos to the American Navy who transported thousands of tanks and airplanes to England through the Atlantic risking their lives so that the Brits can defend their homeland.
british Fireflies took out Tigers by the thousands no one can say how much (:-)
@@tr4u5mp90 The ship I served on in the mid-1960s served escorting freighters and transports during WWII.
Thanks to the crazy Australians who said, “ we can put a 17 pounder on anything”. 😆
@@tr4u5mp90 - full praise should also go to the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy, as well as the RAF and the RCAF for destroying the majority of U-boats and most of the Kriegsmarine’s surface raiders before the build up to D-Day even started. The massive supply effort would never have been half as successful without this continuing effort which started from the opening days of WW2.
In addition to this huge effort, the Battle of the Atlantic was also won by great technical advances in radar, sonar and anti-U-boat weaponry, largely made by the British. The icing on the cake of this technological prowess was Ultra, the intelligence provided by the Enigma code-breakers at Bletchley Park.
When the USA entered the war, it was eventually able to provide aircraft carriers to cover the ‘air-gap’ in the mid-Atlantic, an area of ocean that couldn’t be covered by the RAF or RCAF.
Working together, these three allied nations ensured that the might of US industry could supply the armies and air forces of their nations for campaigns in the Western Theatre of Operations.
Firefly was a tough tank to be in .The gunner was in an awkward position far side of the breach and had to load the round sideways.The tank kicked up a lot of soot from the blast and before firing the gunner had to close his eyes because the flash was so bright it would cause momentary blindness.Fitting a 17 pounder inside a Sherman tank came at a cost!
The gunner does not load the rounds.
However a little extension was added into the back for room
And the loader is in a very comfortable position as he needs room to load, the gunner merely needs to push his foot down
Wittmann was a renowned tank commander, only in Germany. At the time of his death, the allies had never heard of him.
Bit like Patton. Only Americans had heard of him. The Germans hadn't.
Lyndon you and history have but a fleeting acquaintance, Shall we regale?Refresh my memory - when did Guderian,Blumentritt,Rommel or Manstein drive the GIs or Patton off of the continent and into the sea?
1940 British forces "evacuated" from Norway,Netherlands, Belgium and France,Dunkirk
1941 Greece, Crete,Hong Kong and Libya.
1942 Tobruk and Dieppe,Singapore
Like you monty lied once - continuously. So Rommel,Guderian,Bayerlein,Balck,Blumentritt,Manteuffel ALL say you're full of crap but that's why you changed your account name in the 1st place isn't it John?
*From The Rommel Papers by B.H.Liddell-Hart page 523* "In Tunisia the Americans had to pay a stiff price for their experience,but it brought rich dividends .Even at the time American Generals showed themselves to be very advanced in the technical handling of their forces, *Although we had to wait until Patton's Army in France to see the most astonishing achievements in mobile warfare* The Americans it is fair to say,profited far more than the British from their experience in Africa,thus confirming axiom that education is easier than re-education."
*From Patton:A Genius for War,By Carlo D'Este* After the War General Fritz Bayerlein commander of Panzer Lehr Division and the Afrika Corp.He assessed the escape of Rommel's Panzers after Alamein *I do not think General Patton would have let us get away so easily* said Bayerlein .Comparing Patton with Guderian and Montgomery with Von Rundstedt
*Patton: Ordeal and Triumph, by Ladislas Farago (New York: Astor-Honor, Inc., Inc., 1964), p. 505* 'If Manstein was Germany's greatest strategist during World War II, Balck has strong claims to be regarded as our finest field commander. He has a superb grasp of tactics and great qualities of leadership' - Major-General von Mellenthin. *General Balck, commenting on the Lorraine Campaign, said: "Patton was the outstanding tactical general of World War II. I still consider it a privilege and an unforgettable experience to have had the honor to oppose him"*
When interviewed in 1945, *Heinz Guderian* , the Wehrmacht’s foremost practitioner of Blitzkrieg, stated, “ *General Patton conducted a good campaign. From the standpoint of a tank specialist, I must congratulate him on his victory since he acted as I would have done had I been in his place*
General Gunther Blumentritt : *We regarded general Patton extremely highly as the most aggressive panzer-general of the Allies* . . . His operations impressed us enormously, probably because he came closest to our own concept of the classical military commander. He even improved on Napoleon’s basic tenets
From a letter on exhibit at Wichita KS "Museum of World treasures" *Hasso Von Manteuffel* 8018 Diessen am ammersee Mariahilfe Strasse 7. Dec. 16. 1976 Dear Mr. Dellingatti; I thank you for your letter, attached you find a photo as you asked for. *In my opinion General Patton was a master of lightning warfare and the best commander in this reference - in spite of several sorts of frailty of human nature! Evidence of his excellent command and control of an army are the campaign in Sicily, the break-out in Brittany 1944 and during the Battle of the Bulge Dec 1944. I agree with Ladislaw Farago first-rate book on Patton "Ordeal and Triumph" - an excellent report! With very good wishes*
Over to you John err, I mean Lyndon
@@lyndoncmp5751Oh they heard about Patton. At El Guettar, Palermo, France, Belgium and Germany.
@@johnolive3425 It is often claimed that the Germans feared Patton. Turns out few German generals knew who he was.
Patton was critized by other US commanders for showing up in Normandy just in time to reap the glory, after the other US and Commonwealth formations had worn the Germans down.
He was a bit like Rommel and Custer - good at self promotion. Germany had plenty of generals that were as good as Rommel, but all these were mainly fighting on the Eastern front.
True. Why would they have heard about a lower rank officer that had only fought on the Eastern front? And Villers-Bocage was hushed down as much as possible. It was the Tiger's reputation that skyrocketed after VB, not Wittmann's.
The 17 pounder effectively turned the Sherman into a quite mobile very effective tank destroyer
so why didn't the US adapt that version?
@@Bigbassdrum60 They had the M18 Hellcat, not sure they had compatible ammo for the 17pdr too.
@@Bigbassdrum60 Americans using pounds????
@@Bigbassdrum60 Chieftain Talks: M4 Sherman & 76mm
th-cam.com/video/r_8vx5yqZpU/w-d-xo.html
@@Bigbassdrum60 I believe it was they thought the turret was way tooo cramped to be practically usable (would have to go to other resources (the cheiftain first) too see if there was also ammo types, gun types, what the crews wanted to take etc), fortunately Britain has never been hampered by sanity.
A Firefly shooting sabot could penetrate 8 inches of armor although there was accuracy issues.
nicely spoken (:-)
The Firefly is my favourite Allied tank.
Badass!! Do you think anyone in those tanks could hear? They had to be LOUD!!! Tanks are cool!!👍🇺🇸❤️
The answer is simple! The Sherman Firefly was small and nimble with a powerful gun!
With the weight and nose-heaviness of that 17-pounder, the VC Firefly was anything BUT "nimble". But when your main tactic is to lie in wait and ambush advancing German armor, you don't have to be..."nimble".
still garbage
@@selfdo Despite that long gun, the Sherman Firefly was much more maneuverable and nimble than the much heavier, longer, and wider Tigers and Panthers. The tiger in particular moved in slow motion in comparison. Incidentally, well recognized that the Sherman Firefly
could take better cover, despite its longer gun. In fact, all tank crews tried to use this tactic of firing from hiding not only the crews of the Sherman Fireflys.
@@selfdo It was certainly nimble when compared with either the Panthers or Tigers and the turret bustle out back was intended both as a relief area for recoil and counterweight area for radio and other incidentals to be stowed there. The overall weight of the longer barrel was not prohibitive when one considers the addtion of a heavier breech block, recoil dampening mechanism and heavier elevating gearing ALL contained within the circ. of the turret ring. The Firefly turret traverse mechanism was only slightly slower than the original 75.
Good to see some content about the tank my Dad drove through the Netherlands. He and his fellow crewmembers had some close calls, including a panzerfaust which glanced off the turret. They survived.
Excellent presentation of this legendary British tank. As well as the 17 Pounder gun, the Firefly conversion included moving all the ammunition from the side sponsons to armoured ammunition bin on the floor of the tank. This greatly reduced the risk of fire if the tank was hit. Some 2,150 were built with the last batch going to the US Army in Germany, butnever saw action.
The Firefly wasn't a conversion. It needed a completely new specially designed longer hull with the wheels spaced further apart. The radio operator hull gunner compartment had to removed leaving the tank more vulnerable and harder to communicate with.
The longer hull was a result of the engine,
@@williamzk9083 There were two Firefly models, the first was the Sherman MkVc Firefly on the longer M4A4 hull. The later Sherman Hybrid MkIc and Sherman MkIc were built on the M4 hull.
@@billballbuster7186 why were the first ones on extended hulls?
@@williamzk9083 The M4A4 Sherman was powered by a Chrysler Multibank engine (5 Car engines linked to single transmission). This was larger than the usual engines and needed a larger engine bay, so it was extended 12 inches.
17 pounder had a bore diameter of 76mm but fired a heavier projectile at higher speed than the Standard Sherman 75mm.
It had A LOT more powder behind it than the standard 75mm. Much like the Panther's 75mm gun.
Weight to volume, the joys of physics
@ DavidFMayerPhD - The most-significant difference between the two guns - the QF-Ordnance 17-pounder and the American 75mm M3 gun - was not in bore size (76mm and 75mm are virtually identical in bore size, given how small one millimeter is in comparison to the total bore diameter), but in the size of the case for propellant. Anti-tank gun rounds are shaped like bottle-necked rifle cartridges, only much larger. The case for the 17-pounder was not only substantially larger than that of the American 75mm gun, but of the 76mm which replaced it. This is very easy to see if you can find a photo comparing the various anti-tank gun rounds to one another. The German 75mm and 88mm guns used in their tanks had very large propellant capacities, and hence could propel their projectiles that much faster than cartridges with smaller capacity, such as the American 75 and 76mm guns.
Barrel length is also vital in generating high muzzle velocity, which is one reason why the American 75mm M3 gun fared so poorly in that area; not only was the round operating at much lower chamber pressure than its competitors, the gun itself had a fairly short barrel. It was a good general-purpose gun, but mediocre as an anti-tank weapon - for this reason.
Combing the large case (propellant capacity) with higher chamber pressures and a longer barrel gave the 17-pounder excellent performance characteristics in comparison to other guns of its kind of the era. Just as did the American 76mm and 90mm guns, once U.S. designers internalized these parameters and began to turn out improved ammunition and guns for firing it.
There is no real mystery why British and Soviet engineers and designers developed better tank and anti-tank guns more-quickly than the Americans and got them into the field sooner: They were engaged daily in fighting the German Army and its tanks, whereas the Americans did not join the war until Dec. 1941 and did not see their first ground action against the German Heer (army) until the invasion of North Africa and Operation Torch in November, 1942. And really, the U.S. wasn't shaken up by the latest German designs and capabilities until getting sounded defeated at Kasserine Pass in Tunisia. That's when U.S. forces in N. Africa were "blooded" and gained their first experiences against the enemy.
Don't forget, too, that the Sherman held its own well into 1943, as there were few Tiger I tanks in Africa and the M4 was a decided improvement over many existing Allied armor designs already in the field. Everyone on the Allied side feared and respected the renowned 88mm dual-purpose anti-tank/anti-aircraft gun but since these were towed and not self-propelled for the most part, the threat was localized. Allied air superiority over much of N. Africa by that time also helped immensely.
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Excellent and insightful comments.
The difference between the the 17 pdr and the M3 75mm is basically (in much smaller caliber) like the difference between a .30 carbine, and a 30/06.
But, at close range that carbine round could do the same job as the 06 could at longer range.
At 500 meters, a round from the low velocity 75mm could penetrate the sides of a Panther, or Tiger l (their side armor was virtually identical), like a hot knife through butter.
The 17 pdr (and later, the 76mm) could do it at 1500 meters, and more, depending on the type of round, if you could hit it (the 76mm was more accurate at long range than the 17 pdr).
That's what (among other things) that made the battle scene with the four Sherman's in "Fury" so laughable!
Wilfred Harris dragoon- He served in France, and even survived the battle of Dunkirk without injury. His most prominent feat would be recorded in Normandy, in 1944, where he served as a tank commander of a Sherman Firefly.
The 1977 movie: “A Bridge Too Far,” had many Sherman Fireflies on set. It’s the largest gathering of Fireflies since WWII. Many of them were revived to operating status from museums. Great movie! 👍
17 pdr was a very good cannon. Saw a show about somer Panthers holding up an advance of Allies. Allies had one Firefly, that's all it took.
Depends. It was a great gun in towed version, but not that great in Firefly. Powerful, yes, but not accurate enough for longer ranges. That is why US went with their 76mm. Firefly got it's reputation from Normandy mostly, where it was, actually, the most powerful tank, capable of engaging any of the German AFVs. But the sad truth was that it was poor design, not very efficient and ergonomic. That is why they were quickly phased out in favor of the 76mm Sherman.
There is also an argument to be nade that because of the design crew casualties were much higher than in "standard" Sherman...
@@gmaacentralfounder great gun in a crap tank....called the ronson for good reason.
@@shaunwalker2557 That ronson myth started after the war, and it is a mystery for me why neither British or German tanks were called that, even though statistically they burned at the same rate, initially. Because in Shermans it was quickly fixed with wet ammo storage boxes. Not to mention the fact that US Army Armored Force IN ALL OF WORLD WAR II had 1600 KIA and about 40% of these died outside of the tank, and burn wounds weren't more often in Shermans than in British designs. This makes the ratio of 0.6 crewman killed for each Sherman lost, while in T-34 that ratio was 1.8 crewman per lost tank...
@@shaunwalker2557 Oh dear, 🙄You'll have to do better than that I'm afraid, recycling long-discredited myths is no way to win friends in discussions like this.
@@gmaacentralfounder Oh FFS. You’re talking theory, not history. Read Zaloga’s book _’Armored Champion’._ The average engagement range in Normandy was about 400 metres, often less. The hedgerows in the Bocage country made it possible to engage as close as 30 metres if you could effect surprise. The Firefly was the best Allied tank v tank killer of the war.
A Couple of The points you made were a bit debatable, accuracy of the 17 pounder was a point of debate (Aberdeen proving grounds report .) the weapon was installed breach sideways and difficult to load for the crews. conversely the point you made about Normandy near Rott was a side on attack , 75mm Shermans could penetrate the side armor of the Panther . Look at the battle of Arracourt. The 76mm US gun was very close to the 17pounder and arguably more accurate . Although the British Sabo Though rare, was a big dog in penetration. Other factors overlooked was the Britt's using white phosphorous to disrupt the big German cats, When the white phos got into the Tigers ventilation system . M18s @ Arracourt were scoring decisive hits on Panthers into there front armor with the 76mm, However if i am not mistaken the 75mm Shermans accounted for the bulk of the kills on the Panters in the Arracourt engagement from the flanks.
I used to play a tactical strategy game called "Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord" in the early 2000s. Playing the Germans you get used to the big cats being quite strong compared to lots of other Allied armor. However I disliked facing the British because of the 17-pounder gun. Whether we're talking them being used as anti-tank guns or mounted on the Firefly. Very dangerous. With the game set for 1944-1945, the 17-pounder was finding its way onto more platforms.
Another thing about the game was that troops can misidentify things. A PzKpfw IV mistaken for a Tiger. A Firefly mistaken for a plain 'ol Sherman. Etc. These mistakes can have huge ramifications in how you treated threats. The wrong ID can be super annoying because you know there's a lot of regular 75mm armed Shermans out there. It's those scattered few Fireflies that made me worry.
Another annoying thing in dealing with the British were the PIATs. Unlike the Bazooka and Panzerschreck, they didn't have a telltale signature of the launch. Because they didn't have a back blast on firing like those other hand-held anti-tank weapons, you could find PIAT teams from inside buildings and all that. Nasty little things.
The Americans start upping the ante for anti-armor. Again, the game was set in 1944-1945. 76mm gun as mounted on some Shermans and Tank Destroyers. You also started to see M36 Jacksons with the 90mm gun, which was just as nasty to armor as the German 88. I rarely saw the 90mm gun used as an anti-tank gun role like you think of the 75mm Pak40. The 90mm M3 was either mounted on tank destroyers or kept in the back for AA duty. If I ever saw the American 90mm, it was almost always on a tank destroyer.
I used to play a PS1 game called Panzerfront in the early 2000s. I have started playing it again on the Steam Deck. Takes me back to the good old days.. I usually play the German missions using a Tiger. I don’t fear any vehicle of the Western Allies. But whenever I face a British and Canadian unit, I always fear I would run into a Firefly. That and the Allied air superiority are the ones I fear most, having given me a lot of game overs.
One factor that gets missed is the psychological effect on both sides. Pre Firefly the Shermans were at a distinct disadvantage, with the German 88mm in Tiger I and Jagdpanther or the long 75mm in Panther being able to knock out Allied Shermans before they could reply. Post Firefly the Allied crews knew there was a gun nearby that could deal with the Germans and soon the Germans knew that as well. This effects thinking and decision making on the field, maybe you don't counter attack as easily, you don't risk a shot that could give your position away
Did the Tiger and Panther crew forget that they could hit the 76mm Shermans from out of the 17 pounder's range?
@@erikaitsumi6644 Combat ranges in Normandy were rarely more than 400 metres. You should read books like James Holland’s _”Brothers in Arms”_ instead of armour/range/penetration data. Also read Steve Zaloga’s _”Armored Champion”._
This is totally anachronistic. The Fireflies landed in Normandy on D-Day so there was no waiting for them. They were there from the start.
@@thethirdman225 The crews had fought with Shermans in the desert against Tigers, as well as in Italy
@@abzzeus Well, you’ve chosen to mix your dates because the Western Allies didn’t come up against the Jagdpanther - or, indeed, any other model of the Panther - until after D-Day.
A wonderful Military coverage about Upgraded Sherman Tanks (Fitted with 17 pounder Guns- Firefly ) against Panther & Tiger tanks
The Firefly had its faults but was a quick, cheap and effective answer to knocking out the heavier, more expensive and less reliable Tigers and Panthers. More were produced than all Tigers 1s and 2s, only a minority of which were on the western front. It left the other allied tanks to get on with their main job of supporting infantry, even though only a minority of allied tanks there were knocked out by other tanks (most by AT guns and mines).
Pffftt🤣🤣🐂💩
@@frankcastle2045????
It is best pictured in the fury movies. At first tiger shortcoming is its lack of speed due to its weight. In nowadays term we say it as underpower
that was a 76mm sherman
Good one, the Firefly is probably my favorite Allied tank.
The 17 pdr did finally get an effective HE round near the end of the war. It was, like German HE, fired at a lower velocity than the anti tank rounds and had almost as much HE filler as the 75mm M3 (Sherman) and the German high velocity 75mm guns, Kwk 40 (Panzer IV) and KwK 42 (Panther). Near the end of the Normandy campaign the 17 pdr also received a less effective HE round, about on par with the HE round in the US 76mm M1 gun (Sherman and Hellcat).
As for anti tank performance, it was very similar to the 75mm L/70 in the Panther; slightly less penetration at short to medium ranges, near identical at 1000 meters and slightly better at long ranges. It was not quite as accurate as the German gun, but good enough.
126-132 Tigers (depending on source) and about 600 Panthers were deployed in Normandy.
Wittmann's Tiger was very likely destroyed by a Canadian standard 75mm Sherman, firing from the flank at about 140 yards.
The Sherman did NOT possess the advantage of speed and mobility, it was a sluggish tank that, unlike a Churchill or Tiger/Panther, could not pivot in place. Sherman crews complained about the Sherman being sluggish and slow to get out of ambushes compared to their light tanks.
There was a joke in the British Army on how to identify a Firefly crew: the lads without eyebrows. Also the gunner had to be an acrobate (or a chimp) to lay the gun. It was found to be too uncomfortable for US tankers. Which only shows what kind of pu... *cough*, primadonnas US tankers are.🙂
sSS Pz.Abt. 101 and 102 (both Tiger I) plus sPz.Abt. 503 (mix of Tiger I and II), 135 vehicles on paper. Except for Panzer-Lehr, none of the divisions involved had its full complement of Panthers on 6th June. I'd rather go for 500 there. 9th and 10th SS arrived later to the scene and both were incomplete. Panzer IVs were more or less complete, around 700 (including some odd and old Ausf. B, C and D).
And then there were of course StuG III, IV and Jagdpanzer IV, for which I don't have any number.
Last thing I heard about Wittmann was that he was killed by a Canadian Firefly which was in an ambush position behind a farm wall. I agree it could as well have been an ordinary Sherman. At that distance the 75mm wouldn't have any problems whatsoever to penetrate the side armor - where it hit an ammo rack ... Wittmanns turret made quite the jump.
As for Allied tanks, I'd go for Churchill (or Mathilda). Comet was a decent tank but it was a bit too late. For German tanks, it's still the Tiger I. Good enough gun and armor and a decent chance your tank is broken and you don't have to join the "fun" at all. 🙂
@@ottovonbismarck2443 Allied tankers complained that German high velocity guns gave away much less smoke and blast than Allied guns - especially the 17-pdr and US 76mm and 90mm guns.
The number of Tigers and Panthers are for the entire Normandy campaign and includes replacement tanks. As you said, many of the Pz Divs. were low on Panthers at the start.
You should really do the research. Interviews with tank crewmembers tell an entirely DIFFERENT story.
@@todiathink8864 Hm, who or what are you responding to?
The M4A4 Sherman Firefly was around 34 tons because of the length of the hull was longer because of the Chrysler multibank engine was huge . But it had no problem pivoting in place cuz of the sincromess trans ,also the turret could do a full 360 degree rotation in 18 seconds which was very fast for the day. The M4A4 could do 30 mph on roads ,the standard could do 32.
The ground speed, turret rotation speed, maneuverability, and, especially, reliability were all important factors in the success of the Chrysler multibank Sherman. The 17-pounder Brit gun sure didn't hurt, either! German tanks could rarely go 100 Km without a major mechanical malfunction, and were nearly impossible to repair in field conditions.
Correct! To add, American tank units had robust tank repair units. Many American tanks were returned to service, quickly.
I think it was the Ford engine that powered most American Shermans
Best comment Richard … you can have the best but if it breaks down ..it’s not the best
Germans over engineer everything
One of the things I love about the Firefly is it wasn't made by just one country, but two. So Brits and Americans can both be proud of it.
Best WW2 tank channel, thanks for effort to find old film
Thank you 😊
My late father-in-law was a crewman on one of these.
That long EPIC British 17 pounder and its shot were so worrying to the German AFV crews the Firefly with its long gun became first targets... so the Brits and the Commonwealth allies painted the Firefly's end half gun barrel with camo to make it look shorter like the standard 75mm or even 76mm Shermans as to help throw of German anti tankers! ;))
The American equivalent to the Firefly and it’s 17 pounder gun was the M36 Jackson with a 90mm gun. Both vehicles were Tank Destroyers
thank you, good research, and presentation.
While the 17pdr was a great AT gun, the problem with it in the firefly was not that it would take four or five hits to knock out a Tiger or Panther, it was that it would take four or five shots to HIT one!
The Jumbo and Easy 8 variants were also excellent against the Panther and Tiger.
They came later and were only produced because the Americans didn’t want the 17 pdr. I don’t blame them for wanting to develop their own but it would have been a good stop-gap.
The jumbo didn’t have the 76
It was just up armored
@@tedpendagast579 There were some Jumbo's with 76mm guns!
My father , L/Bdr, was in 21st Army Group, 11th Armoured Division , 13th Royal Horse Artillery. His 25lbs could destroy a tank very easily but these guns were not mobile, still very useful. Commanded by Maj/Gen Pip Roberts.
Pip Roberts was a very good tactical general it was guys like him(and your dad) that fought as monty entertained the press.
My great grandad was also in the 11th armoured division and was a firefly commander. They may well have known eachother.
The 25-pounder was designed to be used in the anti-tank role as well as in the indirect fire role and were allocated anti-tank rounds that weighed IIRC 22lb. The South Africans in North Africa on Dead Sunday made good use of this feature.
That's true, it did have a very respectable anti-tank capability, but if your Field Artillery finds itself shooting at tanks it's normally a sign that something has gone very wrong somewhere.😉
@@bigwoody4704 No. You've obviously confused him there with George Patton (who to the Germans was an obscure American general of little significance,)?.
Mass production. As a German tank commander said "A tiger is worth 10 Shermans but the Americans always bring 11 Shermans"
GR8 vid 👍👍.
Yes, the M-10 & -36 were mean but the "Firefly" was the Ultimate. Many thanx.
You can thank Australia for it.
They designed the fitting of a 17lb gun in their AC4 medium sentinel which was then put in the firefly and the thunderbolt
Yes, Col Watson who worked on the AC4 helped by supplying details of the short recoil system to the team developing the Challengers and the FIreflies
The Sherman Fire fly and the Russian KV1 were the biggest fear for the all German tank crews in WW2
one thing is for sure. the germans didnt take prisoners from the crocodile flame tanks
But, the Germans did make good use of their flamethrowers. Pot can't call the kettle black.
The most effective Allied tank from 1944 onwards
Sherman Fireflies proved that one doesn't need an over engineered behemoth, costing swimming pools of cash , and needing many ( many ) thousands of man-hours to produce , to bring a tank killer on to the field of battle
Well yes and no given that the Germans actually needed to produce tanks capable of overcoming the numerical superiority of it's enemies, which led to them being super heavy armoured (among other things) so they can withstand multiple hits while knocking out their numerically superior foes thus inevitably leading to them being over engineered. They couldn't afford a 1:1 ratio
@@_--Reaper--_ No, the Germans produced huge heavy tanks because they appealed to senior Nazis. The Heer commanders would have sold their children for something like the Sherman.
@@thethirdman225 Thats because the senior nazis understood the fact that if they built tanks comparable to the allies, they wouldn't stand a chance. A nation like Germany cannot possibly go up against nations like Russia France England and then USA (all of whom outnumber them considerably) with a 1:1 tank loss ratio and hope to win anything at all.
What the Heer commanders liked about the Shermans was their functionality and relibility; as in it did not break down all the time and was relatively easy to maintain in the field, features that were lacking in their own tanks.
@@_--Reaper--_ No, that’s not what happened. If you can cite a credible source for this I promise to read it. Nothing I have read shows this at all. The senior Nazis had no concept of tank warfare and just assumed that a big tanks would always beat a small one. They were wrong.
@@thethirdman225 the information is freely available at your finger tips. I shouldn't have to spoon feed you...
Also yes: 1 big tank > multiple smol weak tank
It's only common sense. Germany could not keep up with allied tank production so big heavy tanks levels the equation.
Ps. You need to stop reading whatever you're reading if you think the Germans had no concept of tank warfare...
I had a chance to see a sherman tank at ft Knox, ky. They were call the cracker box. Very thin turret wall. 75mm main gun. 4th inf div. vietnam.
Now, there was another highly efficient British artillery weapon, the 4.5" anti aircraft gun...
It's very interesting to note that virtually all of the major combatants in the Second World War had developed by that time effective large caliber (3-inch/76mm or larger) anti-aircraft guns capable of engaging aerial targets at fairly altitudes. Yet, it seems that only the Germans made the connection between use as an anti-aircraft gun and suitability for use as an ant-tank gun.
What's the similarity? Both types of guns, AA and AT, need to be able to engage somewhat small targets at fairly long range both rapidly and accurately. High muzzle velocity helps accomplish both goals. The higher the MV, the less lead or aim-off (as the British termed it) necessary to get the shot on target, and the flatter shooting, the less range estimation (altitude estimation, as the case may be) errors matter. And both types of weapons are line-of-sight weapons, not indirect-fire weapons like mortars or howitzers.
The German insight was to see that the 8.8cm/88mm dual-purpose gun could be used effectively in both roles, and then to design and build different carriages, trailers, and mounts for them depending on mission. There were 88mm guns designed only for AA use, ones designed only for AT use, and ones designed to be able to do both, depending on how the gun was deployed and emplaced. They even designed one variant which could be fired (stopped of course) while still being towed and without its cruciform base deployed.
The British had their excellent 17-pounder and also the formidable QF 3.7 inch gun, the U.S. its 76mm and 90mm guns... the U.S. even fielded 120mm and 5" (127mm) guns for a time, and so on for the Italians, Russians, Japanese, et al. But these were seldom employed as anything other than AA weapons, excepting of course the 17-pounder and 88mm gun.
Where would the english be without the australians. Respect must be given inn this case. Yet nobody knows how a small tank created to fit inside a boat & transported by sea & needed to be a certain size for global transport access, carried a turret capable to destoy bigger Tiger tanks that need '60' gears to drive the heavy 100mm thick armour beast.
great recount of the firefly
I'm glad he points out how difficult caen was for the allies. Britain got stuck fighting the best Germany had there, the others on other fronts .... had their own battles.
The Germans also held all the high ground and controlled all the fire lanes. When the RAF started using heavies like the Halifax as battlefield support weapons, they missed and the Germans were unaffected. The other thing was that Montgomery was really only supposed to pin the Germans down so that Bradley could outflank them.
I've learned to be skeptical about everything the British say about their WWII wonder weapons. They certainly weren't unwilling to con the Americans and that tradition continues to this day. I'm also fascinated by all the seemingly expert first-person commentary in this thread considering that the youngest WWII tank crew member would be 94 years old now…
Like 10cm radar which could have saved a few lives at Pearl Harbour for instance.
@@mikemines2931 Pearl Harbor. First US patent for radar issued in 1934. Radar was in service on Oahu but B17's were due in and arrived during the attack.
"The klystron was the first significantly powerful source of radio waves in the microwave range; ... It was invented by the brothers Russell and Sigurd Varian at Stanford University. Their prototype was completed and demonstrated successfully on August 30, 1937.[5] Upon publication in 1939,[3] news of the klystron immediately influenced the work of US and UK researchers working on radar equipment."
@@nickdanger3802 The magnetron was small for its power output and didn't require hundreds of kilovolts and was tunable.
@@mikemines2931 Magnetron was not in production when Chain Home radar stations were built, klystron was in production.
Damn the General must've been proud with this tank if he was alive.
"As for the American tanks-the admirable Shermans-they came to us in the following way, On that dark day when the news of the fall of Tobruk (June 42) came in, I was with President Roosevelt in his room at the White House. The House knows how bitter a blow this was. But nothing could have exceeded the delicacy and kindness of our American friends and Allies. They had no thought but to help. Their very best tanks-the Shermans-were just coming out of the factories. The first batch had been newly placed in the hands of their divisions who had been waiting for them and looking forward to receiving them. The President took a large number of these tanks back from the troops to whom they had just been given. They were placed on board ship in the early days of July and they sailed direct to Suez under American escort for a considerable part of the voyage." below 21
Hansard Debate on the address HC Deb 11 November 1942
Regardless of ‘nitpicking’, this is what friends do, when in the shite! ❤️
Reminder, Wittmann was killed by a Canadian short 75mm Sherman not a British Firefly as was vaguely suggested in this video. Although, One Firefly did knockout the other 3 members of Wittmann’s Tiger platoon.
I was reading about the Sherwood Rangers in Normandy and it was noted that the normal 75mm/6 pounder did pretty well against German armor (even the heavy stuff). They found that, while they couldn't necessarily penetrate the armor, hitting the target over and over again in quick succession would usually result in the vehicle being disabled and/or the German crew bailing out.
To be honest they dont really know. The other thing is that Wittmann came up against well trained tank crews with sophisticated tactics.
In all likelihood it was the Canadians who took out Wittmann, while a single British tank accounted for the other three, as you stated. I think it was Norm Christie who did a fascinating documentary on this in the past ten years or so.
One almost forgotten fact: The Soviet IS-3 tank was designed with a hope of installing the 17 ponder on it. Hense, its huge turret. But something went wrong and Britain had never lend-leased the 17 pounder to comrade Stalin, so the tank received the 122mm DT-25 cannon, the same one that was installed in its predecessor, the IS-2...
Never mind, we made up for it after the war by giving them the Rolls Royce Nene jet engine instead.🙄 But that's a discussion for another time and place I know.
@@paddy864 - yeah, another colossal piece of stupidity by our politicians. It really makes you wonder about the intelligence of our Oxford educated elite.
An excellent presentation, thanks.😁👌👏👏👏
Meh, the US did some penatration tests in France during WW2. using British gunners for the 17 Pdr and American gunners for the 76mm and found that the 17 Pdr had somewhat more penatration than the 76mm but was no where near as accurate as the 76mm. The 17Pdr also required a modified turret and still severely impacted crew comfort and sustainability. The 76mm fired faster and was considerably more accurate and did not require a modified turret.
big turret ring = more firepower .......good thing the shermans was just big enough to take it but the first tank to try this was the australian sentinel ................only one still exists
I’m not sure why a documentary about the Sherman Firefly would feature an M3 Lee production line.
I know. Weird
Matrix glitch. Did you also see a running cat?
As you say in the video iIt made sense for the UK to have firefly's for D Day as they faced more German armour. As the chieftain pointed out in one of his videos the US knew the 76 was very effective and so it made sense to wait before equipping their own units with it
The fact that the British faced the majority of German armour - and in good ambush country in the Normandy boccage - has been neatly forgotten by every Patton fanboy since.
@@realhorrorshow8547 Just like Brits have "neatly forgotten" Britain was shipped 17,000 M4's under Lend Lease which was virtually free.
@@nickdanger3802 "Virtually free" in the sense that Britain finally paid off Lend-Lease in 2006 with a sum of £42 million?
Three-quarters of the USSR's vastly greater debt was written off because it's harder to fuck your enemies than your "friends".
By the way, who do you think fought in those British M4s?
@@nickdanger3802 Virtually free? You realise, don’t you, that lend-lease resulted in Britain handing over a wealth of wartime projects and secrets to the Americans. The debt caused Britain to remain in rations until the mid-1950s. The las5 payment was made in 2006.
Virtually free… Christ on a bike…
It's common sense, the Firefly had a 17 Pounder gun as it's main gun which could easily knock out the Tiger and Panther Tank
50% of Shermans delivered to British armor by 1945 were 17 pounder Fireflies. A pragmatic solution to the German tanks they opposed. US armored forces only really faced mass German armor in the Ardennes at the end of 1944.
True. And lost about 3 times as many in combat.
@@lyndoncmp5751 indeed if I recall correctly from Nicholas Moran aka the chieftain’s presentation he quotes about 5, Sherman won in Italy, Pershing lost in Germany and they captured three on a train. Though 27 were captured in Normandy, Panther 34.
21 army reported figures against Tiger, 132 knocked out, 54 damaged, Panther 262 knocked out 128 damaged. Knocked include destroyed including air action and the abandonment by crews. Memorandum C6. The problem was the Tiger and Panther couldn’t keep place with the Allies approach to warfare.
This is confirmed by the research of Thomas L Jentz
anytime the brits faced tigers it was the massive bombing like Falaise and Caen where even the Naval guns 12 miles away wer wreaking havoc. Everybook i read were the Germans screaming about the Jabos.Thunderbolts and Typhoons plus the heavies And BULLSHIT Monty faced 4-5 divisions at Caen there were 25 in the Ardennes
@@bigwoody4704 in Normandy British Canadian forces faced 7 of the German SS Armored Divisions plus Wehrmacht armored divisions against 1.5 by the Americans. Artillery on both sides was the main weapon. Ground attack aircraft effects were in post battle analysis found to be successful against mass soft targets but not effective against armor. German armor was mostly lost thru mechanical breakdown or out of fuel. The main killer of Allied tanks was the 40mm and 88mm German PAK guns. Allied heavy bomber tactical bombing on the battlefield was notoriously inaccurate and more a hindrance to later allied movement than anything else eg both at Caen and later start of Cobra. The Jabos were more of a psychological weapon against infantry and soft vehicles, forcing them to stop and take cover. Where bottlenecks occurred eg at bridge crossings or in towns and villages then severe damage could be done.
@@michaelmazowiecki9195 Caen was 12 miles inland and easily pounded by the off shore Naval Guns also.I have a lot of respect for the soldiers that fought.None for Monty he lied incessantly to either glorify himself or deny culpability for his poor command skills - repeatedly .He was promoted way beyond his accomplishments or abilities
*My Three Years With Eisenhower,by Capt.Harry C.Butcher,p.616* July 17,1944 The RAF had dropped a concentration of 7700 tons of bombs to help the ground troops break through the German defense ring.Around evening Air Marshall Tedder had called IKE and and mentioned Monty had stopped his armor from going any farther.IKE was mad as Monty was drawing up his "administrative tail".The Americans got Saint-Lo,taken in fighting from hedgerow to hedgerow and settled in the streets
*My Three Years With Eisenhower,by Capt.Harry C.Butcher,p.617* July 19,1944Monty had a press conference yesterday at which he said that at least 156,000 Germans had been killed or wounded since D-Day.Yet in the big push east & south of Caen only 2,500 prisoners were taken
*IKE said yesterday that with 7000 tons of bombs dropped(around Caen) in the most elaborate bombing of enemy front line positions ever accomplished,only 7 miles were gained can we afford 1000 tons of bombs per mile?The air people are completely disgusted with the lack of progress*
And german Tankers and soldiers themselves were quoted about the "Jabos" they were on the other end as they had no air cover
Great video!
Thanks!
@@FactBytes You really need to learn how to pronounce words. LOL
I love these videos. They bust alot of misconceptions about ww11.
The combination of American, British and Australian engineering is the best part if it all
They ambushed and fired from cover with a high velocity gun, that's how.
Smart!!
As did every other tanker by doctrine accepted as most effective as early as 1942. Nobody believed you met out by the corral and engaged in an old fashioned wild west shoot out as the primary method of using tanks in battle after N.Africa.
@@brustar5152 Why do you think that I implied that they should meet at high noon? I just simply answered the question put forth in the article.
The fact that the P51 Mustang became such an outstanding fighter after the Merlin engine was installed in it makes me wonder why the U.S. Army failed to follow the British lead again and mass produce their own version of the Firefly.
The VC Firefly was top-heavy, hard to steer, and very cramped inside the turret. If it failed to destroy its target with the first shot, it was often taken out by retaliatory fire before the crew could reload. While this tank was better than nothing, it was not the effective tank destroyer that the Brits counted on. But they persisted, and along came their Comet and, just after the war in Europe wrapped up, the CENTURION.
The easy 8 with the high velocity 76 mm
Douglas Self,
Tell that to the Firefly gunners who took out 3 Tigers or 5 Panthers very quickly.
The Firefly was a better tank killer than anything the Americans produced in 1944.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Unconfirmed and likely BS. Yes, the main weapon of the Firely COULD penetrate the Tiger I from all aspects, and the Panther, though it was outgunned by both. Most claimed "Tiger" kills have been found to be in engagements where no heavy panzer battalion was deployed, so likely the "Tiger" was a Mark IV, which, with its "Schurtzen", could easily be mistaken for a Tiger I at long ranges or by green tank crews.
Never mind the very slow rate of fire necessitated by the cramped conditions of the 17-pounder. The Sherman simply didn't have a big enough turret for it. The BETTER anti-tank platform using the 17-pounder was based on the Valentine chassis, known as the "Archer", which didn't appear until November 1944. Simple ingenuity, with the gun facing BACKWARDS...the Archer backed into a prepared firing position, then got off a few rounds, then scooted the hell out of there before it received retaliatory fire!
Previous experience showed the Americans that around 83% of enemy targets engaged in combat were "soft" targets; infantry, bunkers, trucks, and other non-armored targets. The standard 75mm gun on a standard Sherman was superior to the 17 pounder against "soft" targets, so the US commanders resisted using a Firefly, that was only truly useful against 17% of the enemy targets they expected to encounter. Were they correct? There is no way to know for sure, but the record shows the US Army in Europe was not destroyed, or even significantly slowed, by German Panthers and Tigers. Remember, even the best tank will eventually be defeated without infantry support, and standard 75mm Shermans were superior at eliminating that infantry support, as well as dug-in infantry defenses. It's romantic to see the fight against the Germans in Western Europe as a Knightly duel fought with tanks instead of noble chargers, but that was not the way it actually was. It was a hard infantry fight, fought with tank support.
400yards was the farthest distant a firefly could penetrate a tiger, and it had to get lucky. a tigers max pen distace against a firefly was more than 2k yds
Wehraboos can’t take the ss pig with two other Tigers being killed off at 800 yards. Funny how they cannot hear the bit about penetrating 150mm at 1,000 yards.
The British 17 pounder was no joke👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Thanks for the great content.
Ekins, after having stopped Witmann in Normandy, became moved to other jobs in spite of being an excellent gunner in his tank.
makes one wonder dont it
Ekins did indeed hit 3 Tigers of Wittmann's group, he did not hit Wittmann's Tiger; that was done by the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers with two Sherman VC's Fireflies in their group of 8 vehicles hidden behind the chateau wall at Gaumesnil where they had made firing apertures were only 150m away and the angle of the hole in Wittmann's Tiger bears testimony to that. The British tanks with Joe Ekins were some 1200m distant at the time.
So you were then.
I cannot understand how was the recoil of the Firefly technically solved. The Tiger Tank had a much bigger turret to support their 88 mm gun.
Magic. The only solution.
Being slightly more serious, they took the entire radio set out of the turret and mounted it in an external bin, which allowed just enough room for the 17 pounder to recoil into without hitting either the turret or a crew member.
@@PsilocybinCocktail Bullshit American style. My question was serious taken.
@@PsilocybinCocktail If you notice in the shots of the Fireflys, they had an amoured "bustle" at the back of the turret to accommodate the recoil of the 17 pounder gun.
David Fletcher has a book about the Firefly and this explains how this was achieved. The gun was turned on its side and the single recoil unit was replaced by two smaller units which absorbed the recoil in approximately half the difference. A kindle version is available and it’s a good read.
Has it not been for the Firefly the left flank of the Normandy landings would have been destroyed. It was by mere good fortune that the US did not encounter Tiger and Panther tanks before the US breakout in Operation Cobra as the US Army simply had nothing that matched the Firefly. The British and Canadian armies absorbed the brunt of the German armoured attacks post June 6 1944.
I think the US also had an M4 Sherman 76mm version
Great video. Thanks.
The Allies were not thrown into a "frenzy." The Tiger was used in extremely low numbers in the Western Front and Allied Leadership did recognize the Sherman in a 1:1 situation vs a Panther Mk V or Tiger Mk VI was outmatched, but they also had to think about strategic logistics. All Allied tanks had to be shipped via Liberty or Victory ships which had crane and dock weight limitations. The M36 had less armor protection but had a strong 90mm gun. Also Allied commanders by 1944 had superb Artillery and overwhelming Close Air Support. You defeat the enemy with Combined Arms, not just one weapon system. Likewise the Tigers was notoriously unreliable. Nearly half were sitting idle awaiting repair. Allied fought using all instruments of national power.
Very interesting, thank you.
Thanks Nick.
If I remember correctly the British asked the Americans to mass produce this weapon. The Americans refused as the 17 pounder was a British gun and not one of there own.
If the US declined to produce the 17 pdr it is likely because they had a theoretically similar weapon (the 76mm AT gun) 'in the pipeline'. The US produced 10,000-plus licence-built copies (many improved by a longer barrel) of the British 6 pdr (57mm) which were widely used by US forces as well as supplied to their Allies, so I do not think they averse to producing 'other nations' designs.
@@alfnoakes392 I think the British asked to put the gun in the tank for them when they were building the tank. I think the Brits were producing the gun. And when the Brits got the tanks pulled out the 75mm and put in their 17 pounder.
@@alfnoakes392 The Americans actually had some 76mm Shermans available for Normandy, but they were declined by the tankers themselves. American trank crews had been extensively and well trained with the 75mm and did not want a weapon that they were inexperienced with at shortish notice - a wise choice! The Cheiftan has done a good video on this.
Probably because America and Britain were Allies but not exactly friends.
@@johnthomas7038 Might be wrong but was not the 75 more affective than the 76 ??
To all those posters who can’t resist the urge:
1) The Sherman was never known as a ‘Ronson’ or ‘Tommy Cooker’. These are post war myths that have been debunked literally thousands of times;
2) The Firefly used the British 17-pounder, not the 6-pounder,
3) Air attack against tanks during WWII was rather ineffective. A post-war British survey showed that only about 2% of German tanks were destroyed from the air;
4) Shermans suffered low casualties. In total, about 1,300 Sherman crewmen were killed between D-Day and the end of the war. There was no wholesale slaughter of Shermans by Panzers of any kind;
5) The claims of Tigers killing Shermans at 2,000 metres are myth. They were so rare as to be an irrelevance, even in the wide open space of the Ukraine. Normandy engagement ranges were between 200 and 400 metres, due to terrain and hedgerows;
6) The Sherman, though not perfect, was an excellent infantry tank that was well liked by its crews and suffered some of the lowest casualty rates of any service during the war.
All these claims are basically without foundation or rare enough as to be irrelevant. Please stop posting unfounded rumours and discredited BS.
It's commonly believed that the US didn't adopt the Firefly because the US didn't want a tank that was designed to fight other tanks.
This is not true.
The actual reason the US never adopted the Firefly was because they didn't have a source of ammunition for the 17 pounder: the UK didn't have enough spare production capacity to sell them any (and it would have left US supply lines overly complicated if they had) and retooling an American factory to produce 17 pounder shells instead of 75 or 76 mm shells would have taken too long.
Chieftain Talks M4 Sherman & 76mm
th-cam.com/video/9bQHw_n_gPs/w-d-xo.html
Great video reporting 👍
17 Pounder the best of British, just saying from Glasgow 😎 🇬🇧
as the years goes by, every ww2 allied tank get better and better
AND
And the box heads were all supermen, also really won WW2.
British collaboration started in earnest with the 1941 Tizard mission. One of the best but least known contributions was the VT fuse (AA proximity fuse) Before it's introduction AA needed ~20,000 shells per aircraft hit. AA destroyed more V1 bombs than fighters (and on the early fixed 'firing lanes', nearly 100%). The Kamikazee threat was greatly reduced by the over 40 million VT fuses produced by USA by 1945. Another was the Hedgehog ASW mortar. in contrast German-Japanses tech collaboration was negligible. The British 17pounder and US 76mm M1 were not exactly the same.
by the end of the war the true tiger killer was that the Sherman's could be produced at a 20:1 ratio, the Germans ran out of time and production but the loses to Sherman's was astronomical, at one point it was 7 Sherman's for one tiger.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II#Land
I can recommend the book 'Brother's in Arms' by James Holland .From D-Day to VE-Day . A graphic account of a Tank Regiment's battles .
An excellent book about the ordinary soldiers with not pistol packing General in sight, highly recommended to anyone interested in the actuality of tank warfare.
I've read it too. A brilliant book, It's worthy of a mini series.
Brad Pitt need not apply.
It won't get made of course because the unit featured was British.
British can't make movies? I liked 1917
@@bigwoody4704 Unless a big successful that is to say rich director decides to make one, too many films are dependent upon Hollywood finance to get made so if it doesn't portray the american side of war there's no real interest in it getting made. Sam Mendes is an internationally respected film maker and has enormous pulling power to get his ideas on screen. It's also widely believed that he only agreed to direct 'Spectre' upon condition that the company supplied finance for the making of '1917'.
Somehow I can't see Hanks/Spielberg making a fourth wartime miniseries that doesn't concentrate on US forces.
Again the British can't make movies? The Kings Speech, Four Weddings and a Funeral, A Fish Called Wanda,Dunkirk,Monty Python and the Holy Grail,Priest.......
17 pounder was only successfully implemented into the Sherman due to all data aquired from the Australians own designed the AC4 cruiser tank trials
No, it was only done so QUICKLY because of the Australian data. Why is it everyone seems to think the British cannot figure that sort of thing out themselves? They would have been able to do it, but the Australian data meant they were able to do so much more rapidly than they otherwise would have been able to.
5:39 My fathers Firefly crossing the River Orne at "London Bridge" I have a photograph from the other side of the bridge.
Firefly the short lived tv series...
Make sure 2 watch them in order.
it was a good one though
It's main weapon...IF it gets the first shot in and the round finds its mark. Else, with the cramped turret, that Firefly is slow to reload, and if the target can retaliate, it will, and the Sherman VC Firefly is a flaming hulk. The other problem with the 17-pounder is, although it had very good muzzle velocity and those APDS rounds could punch through all but the frontal turret armor of the King Tiger, at least "on paper", it was not terribly accurate at long ranges. That's a huge deficiency for a tank hunting vehicle, as it should be able to lay a round on the target with the first, and hopefully ONLY, shot. In this respect, the Firefly was at a terrible disadvantage against the German "Big Cats" and even Panzerjagers with either the 75mm L48 weapon, or the Soviet-built 76.2 mm gun, or later marks of the Panzer IV.
I note that the Comet, itself a very good tank, had a version of the British 76.2 mm gun that was shortened to 49 calibers, to avoid confusion with the 17-pounder, it was named the "77 mm". It didn't have quite the armor penetration numbers of its higher-velocity cousin, but it fit better in the turret of the Comet.
Not quite got your facts right. There was no problems with the accuracy of the 17pdr gun. One specific type of round was the problem NOT THE GUN.
@@michaelkenny8540 You're referring to the APDS round, which is what distinguished the 17-pounder from the 76 mm. True, but the accuracy of the 17 pounder was inferior even when throwing HE shells, which, admittedly, wasn't its intended role. The trouble was the rapid erosion of the rifling as high-velocity rounds were fired. The Americans solved this problem in a fairly straightforward manner: their weapon had an inner line which held the rifling, and as it wore, it could be changed out by the crew in less than an hour with hand tools. The Brits had to change out the entire weapon and send it back to the factory for re-lining. Without that APDS round, the 17-pounder was no better than any similar Allied, Soviet, or German weapon. Admittedly, the technology was new, and these are reflective of "teething" troubles...which WERE solved, just simply after the war.
Still, when it did work, if the 17-pounder's APDS round did find its target, it was usually a "first shot KILL". It wasn't just that the sabot punched through even the most thickest of German armor...it was also the spalling and how the sabot, once through, would precess and tumble, with devastating effect. Far more so than other AP rounds or the German "Panzergranate." The UK was on the right track as far as anti-tank rounds were concerned. They just needed a vehicle that could actually take the 17-pounder (Centurion), and further work to refine the APDS type. I've seen a lot of discussion about the hypothetical "Panzerwaffe '46", but even some of the snazzier designs ready to roll out of Niebelungenwerke would have had a tough "customer" in the Centurion. Let alone the US upgraded T23 medium tanks or the M26E2 with that T15E1 long 90mm gun. Or what the Soviet "tankists" with the T-44 and the JS-3, had ready to deal with the "Fascists".
@@selfdo The 17 pdr was not 'inaccurate' and have never seen any evidence it had inferior performance in any respect. Where can I see the proof it had problems with accuracy? There is a photo of a Tiger penetrated frontally twice on June 15 where both holes overlap.
Joe Ekins took out 3 Tigers pretty quickly.
Sgt Harris took out 5 Panthers pretty quickly.
This myth about the Firefly being problematic and inaccurate stems from The Chieftain's videos. While he is very good with knowledge in many aspects, he's biased and wrong in some others.
US Army testing showed that it was quite inaccurate. Cant kill it if you cant hit it.
It had a gun that could penetrate the tigers armour..that's it more or less..
Most German tanks that were destroyed were hit on the sides or rear. Penetrating the frontal armour of a Tiger 1 was almost impossible except at close range. A problem hardly mentioned is that an APDS round will " overpen" leaving two holes in a tank but not knocking it out unless a vital component is hit, or the crew killed by spalling. Panthers had only 40mm side armour and a Tiger 1 had 60mm, so even a Sherman 75 could take them out from an ambush position. The Tigers knocked out by Fireflies in the action that killed Witmann were all hit in enfilade by the British tanks sitting unnoticed in a farmers courtyard and firing though gaps they made in the brick wall. The Germans had no idea they were there... as in a lot of tank engagements. The first to fire was the one to win.
There is a photo of a Tiger knocked out on June 14 with 2 clean penetrations right through lower nose plate.
I’d say the 17 pounder WAS the best AT gun if ww2. Unlike the 88 there wasn’t really anything that shrugged its shots (Matilda II laughing at the 88.)
so, in essence, a firefly with the long barrel giving the 75mm round a high muzzle velocity but without a good HE round was more an antitank weapon and not that useful in other modes? Ambush tactics were the best way to utilize an antitank tank and the mobility made it easy to shoot and scoot to another prepared position with the target area well ranged.
Strategically that was the best way to use it, it was a brilliant mobile tank killer!
No. The QF 17 pdr was a totally different gun from the 75mm. It was British, for a start.
The Firefly was there to kill tanks, whilst the rest of the troop was there to kill anything else.
As the allies were in the main the attackers the Firefly was not used as the spearhead but in over-watch.
The allies could afford to lose tanks at a 1-1 ratio, so if a Panther or a Tiger opened fire at the advancing 75mm equipped Sherman's
or Cromwell's there would be a good chance that the Firefly could knock that tank out, thus increasing the survival rate of the other tanks.
This meant that the Sherman's would also close the distance between themselves and the big cats and would be able to bring their guns to bear.
The German's were more successful at knocking out the big gunned Russian tanks because they 2 part ammo load and had to load the shell then the propellant
This meant that the German's were able to get off at least 2 to 3 rounds compared to their Russian counterpart, this was not the case with the Western Allies!
Given the allies we’re on the offensive after Normandy, would they have had the opportunity to prepare positions and range a large target area?
@@MattColler Sorry: what do you mean?
The Allies were fighting against entrenched positions where the Germans controlled all the fire lanes and all the high ground. This was what the Allies were fighting to take. Is that what you mean?