I did several tours in UK with the US military. Before I left in 2011, I had a chance to interview Joe Ekins, the gunner of the Firefly many believe took out Michael Whitmann's tank. (And yes, many dispute this.) Joe was a very small man. Now that I see just how much room there was in a Firefly turret, his size was definitely an advantage!
Its definitive, Mr. Etkins( A Hero) shot and killed 3 of 4, of a Tiger Tank troop the fourth tank was beyond optimal range and obscured down a slope. That was Wittmann's tank. A Canadian tank troop , Radley Walter's troop(a Hero) was set up behind walls and bushes less than 500 yds from Wittmann's tank. Walters didn't get the kill but he knows that 1 of his troop did. Of course none of the tankers new that Wittmann was in those tigers at the time; they were too busy fighting for their lives. Wittmann's death becomes news later. This was proven by historian Norm Christie in his series found here on youtube. ( Look up , Norm Christie: Battlefield mysteries Ep.1-panzer ace Michael Wittmann)
@@nicholaspatton1742 Thanks for the recommendation! The Christie video was excellent! (Too bad they didn't render the Sherman Firefly in the animations...)
@@nicholaspatton1742 seen that series with Norm Christie , his documentary gives the most convincing case for the death of Whitman I’ve ever seen . Since then I’ve believed it was the Sherbrooke fusiliers who got the final shot in .
"Sir, the 17 pounder won't fit" "Put it in sideways" "The radio won't fit" "Cut a hole and make it stick out in the back" "The engine's no good!" "Get 5 car engines and put them together"
My uncle,was in the First Armored Division,during WW2.He was a driver on the Sherman,the first one he drove used the radial engine.He often said the only reason he survived WW2 was the fact that the Sherman could usually out manauver most of the German tanks and on the tank Uncle drove the gunner was very good and very fast.Uncle said that whatever the gunner fired at was hit.Way uncle told it common practice was if possible fire into the German turret ring,second round into tracks,call in artillery to finish the job.
Jon English : I think most Brit tankees thought so too. At last they had a gun to defeat the Germans regardless of discomfit . Some people forget the Brits had been fighting in tanks before the US even got there
There must have been a big comfort knowing you could shoot back with something effective. I would guess the crews would go to almost any inconvenience if that ensures they had large teeth who could damage the tigers ;)
Not sure if it is still there but there used to be a good Sherman Firefly at the South African War Museum in Pretoria. Worth bearing in mind that the Firefly's were vital in Normandy, because three quarters of the German Panzer divisions, including plenty of Tigers and Panthers, were facing the British and Canadians. 'Hornet' was a tank or a SP gun. I have heard veterans use the term.
FYI Until almost end of JUNE in Normandy the Allies only faced 6 Tiger Is (Tiger tanks of 101st Heavy SS Tank Battalion) and 16 Panthers according to German Army Records! However, many Allie tankers reported facing plenty of 'Ghost' Tigers which were really Panzer MK 4 s it is believed. It was only late on the 26th June with the arrival of some German reinforcements II SS Panzerkorps, consisting of 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions that the first Platoon of Tiger 2 and a further Tiger 1 Heavy Tank Battalion arrived East of Caen facing the British & Canadian Divisions attacks..
that was an excellent closing piece. you did a great job of pointing out the role it ended up filling and why they made the conversion in the first place.
Thank you for the tour, my grandfather was conscripted to REME and sent to the Guards Armoured Division who were equipped with Sherman Fireflies. He was already too old for an overseas combat role and retained at the depot for training new crews after the Division left for Normandy. The movie A Bridge Too Far shows the Guards Armoured Division crossing into the Netherlands and being hit by German antitank gunners and calling in RAF Typhoons for support while on their way to Arnhem. I understand this is a fairly accurate reconstruction of the event (it can be seen on TH-cam). The Guards Armoured Division was also sent to the Battle of the Bulge where they knocked out a few German tanks trying to cross the river. I was told that my grandfather was 6ft tall and called himself the Dreamy REME to his family suggesting that these Sherman Fireflies with their Chevrolet engines didn't go wrong much in training.
My Father was in the 44RTR and was a Radio operator/loader in the Firefly from D+1. Went right through Normandy, survived 2 escapes from being hit and ended up in Hamburg.
Excellent presentation. I now know more about what my father had to work with - in 1944-45 he was a tank commander in the New Zealand Division in Italy. He told us stories about what went on there and talked, from time to time, about the Firefly Shermans they had. He said the standard gun fitted to the Sherman was a useful enough weapon but the 17-pounder gave them a whole new dimension in their ability to make holes in things - it was powerful enough to destroy anything it was aimed at. He told us things that your commentary confirmed: when they fired the standard gun they could stand up, looking out of the turret to spot the fall of shot and the muzzle blast was bearable, but the 17-pounder was so violent they had to duck down inside the turret when it fired. He said it was impossible to spot the fall of shot if they were shooting at a target within 1,000 yards, even as flank observers, as they would still be flinching from the tremendous muzzle blast when the shot arrived. He had little that was kind to say about the multi-bank engines their tanks were fitted with. Originally, the Shermans came with two-stroke GM diesels but when the Americans started their island hopping in the Pacific they wanted all the diesel engines they could get their hands on for their landing craft. The Americans lacked a suitable petrol engine so they created the multi-bank monster and my father said they had endless grief with them. One big drawback was, now being petrol-powered, the tanks caught fire quicker when hit.
That's great. The Music is distracting and doesn't seem appropriate, although it is turned down to a volume where it doesn't interfere with the ability to here the narrative.
"Gunner, traverse left, steady on, 1800, hornet!" "Er, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, squadron leader." "It's perfectly ordinary banter, Squiffy. Gunner, traverse left... steady on... 1800... hornet! "No, I'm just not understanding banter at all well today. Give us it slower." "Banter's not the same if you say it slower, Squiffy."
I have a lot of fun in the VC Firefly in World of Tanks... i really enjoyed this video (and part 1) getting into the details of the modifications and configuration that really made the FireFly such a unique weapon...
If I was facing a Panther, Tiger or Tiger 2 ,I would want to increase my chances of survival. The morale knowing you could take on one alone and even survive was significant, so it was a no brainer a Sherman V Firefly 17Pounder any day than a standard M4 Sherman!
Well, I've compared this review with your review of the Israeli M50 'super' Sherman (which had a French gun of similar power to the 17 Pdr). I don't know if the French contractor that adapted the long 75 to the small Sherman turret had experience of the Firefly - but they added a mantlet 'extension' which gave much better room inside the turret. Too bad the Brits didn't decide to add some kind of extension to the mantlet - or just use the less powerful (but still impressive) 77mm in the Firefly. Note that the 17 Pdr had a propellant cartridge 583x135mm; for comparison, the US 76mm M1A1 had a 539x93mm cartridge and the British 77mm had a 420x116mm. The relatively short length of the 77mm cartridge is very handy in the confines of a turret!
So according to Ken Tout, a typicall platoon would have 3x regulat 75mm Shermans and 1x Firefly Sherman. The tactic was for the regular tanks to scout ahead and when a target was located bring up the Firefly and coordinate its fire onto the target. This would probably go some way to mitigating the issues of firing the 17lbr
Love the series, hate the background music. When watching multiple episodes the music become annoyingly monotonous. It repeats over and over and over until your head starts to split open. It gets to the point you can no longer hear the host, just the annoying music.
I always heard that it was it was a tight fit for the crew installing the 17 pounder because of it's massive breach block but I never realized to what level it was, especially for the gunner, sitting and aiming all crooked and twisting like a contortionist to lay the gun, honestly I would feel sorry for him...! Anyway I found this video very interesting and I like it very much! Good job again!
“Hornet” is indeed a tank, and there are oral histories / personal anecdotes of it actually being used in action. “Ant” is a new one on me though. I’m not so sure about the “hoarding” though - leaving aside Italy - in NW Europe policy was for one Firefly per tank troop (ie one in four), so they would have been in the van along with their troop for any advance. Maybe they covered the rear position of the troop I dunno, tho the troop would still be at the spearhead. Firefly numbers increased throughout 44-45 and at start on campaign, June 44, it may be that they were in scarcer numbers so deployed differently. I did read somewhere that firing whilst moving was not advisable, so maybe it covered its troop’s movements over bounds (ie a fire and movement tactic). Probably noteworthy that the tank’s “greatest hits”, eg Ekins and/or Rad at Gaumesnil, Henry at Bretteville or Harris at Lingevres are from Fireflys in a defensive role firing from cover or hidden. There is a distinction between the 17pdr M-10 and the Firefly. M-10’s were crewed by Royal Artillery as an SP gun, rather than as “tank destroyer”. Firefly was crewed by tank regiments and operated under British armoured doctrine (which gradually had its flaws wrung out in 44). Turret/breech etc on M-10 was all different, none of the Firefly mods - basically the towed 17pdr stuck on a tank chassis. They were used as a mobile a/tk stop line while the Firefly was employed a tank in a direct role.
Joe Ekins, the gunner in a Firefly destroyed four tanks in a day, including three Tigers - numbers 312, 009 & 314. So he never found the Firefly interior a problem.
Regular M4: Considerably more comfortable, practical and all-around useful, especially in the 80% of circumstances when you meet only infantry and common-tier armor (StuG IIIs and Panzer IVs). Easier to repair, faster to replace, cheaper, more common, more trustworthy... etc. etc. etc. Firefly: Useless against infantry, painful to operate 24/7, held together with spit and bailing wire and entirely uncertain if they're hitting what they're aiming at... but... if you run into a Big Cat, 30% of the tanks in your company aren't going to die pointlessly and fruitlessly as distractions so one guy can get a flank shot... at which point the Big Cat recognizes he's being flanked and calmly retreats in reverse, leaving you with multiple dead Shermans and no kill to show for it. The Firefly wins.
Jacob Chang Gee thanks Leslie McNair. The 76mm was just another way for Ordnance to save bucks, resurrecting a shitty old WW1 era design (the 3" gun, which was only considered "high-velocity" if your mind was stuck in several decades prior, which of course Ordnance's was). The 17-pounder by comparison was a much later design that could handle vastly more pressure due to a bottleneck design instead of the antiquated straight case on the 3"/76mm. It also had a better cross-section for inherent AP ability, and hummed along at around 100 meters per second faster than the blunter, fatter 76mm. Both of them had a useless HE shell, which is far more forgivable in the 17, given that it has a much smaller cross section but is pushed by 1.5 kilos more powder than the 76mm. Would have sucked to be the guy crammed into the turret next to it, but the very first time (if ever) they ran headfirst into a Big Cat and got lucky enough to get the first shot... I bet they were glad as hell they weren't in a 76mm Sherman. Might as well take the 75mm, at least then you can put out a lot of smoke in his line of fire if he doesn't kill you with the first shot.
Well I mean they used it's running gear and stuff, for awhile anyway, not sure if that qualifies as the whole chassis. It worked great, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Later on with HVSS , etc, stuff was changed up though. Also with the M7 Priest once there were alot of Shermans around they made them with Sherman chassis.
@@hoatattis7283 Ekins was interviewed, he said he fired 6 times, one ranging shot and one kill shot for each of 3 Tigers. The tank commander pulled them back into cover between each pair of shots.
I heard a story, I think it was something Lindybeige read in a video of his, where a group of Shermans were on line firing at approaching German tanks, with less than hope for results. A new tank comes up next to the author's tank and fires. It was a firefly, and the muzzle break was even with the author's partially open TC hatch. The muzzle blast was so great, they thought for a second that they'd been hit!
I will not try to contradict the fact that the american 76, which had a turret designed for the bigger gun, performed over all better, but the strength of the firefly was that each unit with one attached could take on tigers and panthers head on, as the 17 pdrs penetration capabilities outclassed other western allied guns against heavy armour. So if you take it for what it is, a tank destroyer attached to a troop of shermans, i would argue the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
That is actually a fair and logical argument. My one caveat is that the only 17 pdr round with appreciably better penetration than the 76mm HVAP was its sabot round, which was horrifically inaccurate. However, that is assuming that 76s with HVAP were available, which for a time they really weren't ,so fair is fair.
Fair point, IF tigers were the only tanks with too good armour for a normal 75 or even a 76 unless point blank, and IF all your tanks had 17 pdrs. Panters, while not extremely common, where numerous compared to tigers, and with equally effective frontal armour (also jagdpanters, but I don't really know how many of those there where). So my point is not 'firefly op must replace all guns', but rather that having 75s on 3 out of four tanks that is far superior to the long 76 in terms of high explosive - which is the most important ammunition as tank on tank combat itself was not extremely common compared to "soft" targets - and still good enough to deal with stugs and pz IVs. So, in conclusion, rather than having a rather effective anti tank gun with poor high explosive capabilities but a good crew compartment on the entire units tanks, it's equally or even more effective to have your majority of tanks fitted with a gun suitable for the most common targets, ie infantry, gun emplacements, mgs etc, and one with a real good anti tank gun in each group for when it's really needed, regardless of how roomy the turret is on that particular tank. Now, you might think it's reasonable to just go with decent in bulk and count your losses when you encounter one of those rare tanks or can't support your infantry as much as you might want, but I personally think giving every unit a better fighting chance on the expense of comfort is a better way to go.
Honestly I think that the way we did it towards the end of the war- I believe the preferred mix was 3 105s and 1 76mm- was pretty darn good, and as a British equivalent a Firefly with 3 normal 75s is good too.
Yeah, I was thinking 44 when the firefly was introduced. As far as I'm aware, the americans fielded homogenous units at the time, which limits options, so that's what I think could be improved. Which it was. So it seams we think the same thing here really.
Expierement_1 he's done the is4 and is7 have a look at those cuz I don't think the is3 is going to be too much different from those two... other than maybe being even worse inside
There is one in Kubinka (I've seen it), but knowing how some tank's internals there have been preserved (I'm looking at you, Maus), not sure if it'd be possible to do a video on the inside.
While Kubinka is pretty bad at taking care of their tanks, the Maus should not be used as an example because the turret is from one prototype that had its ammo rack detonated while the hull is from an incomplete example.
there is one here in brussels, but im not sure what state its in, or even if its still there for that matter. last time i checked they were building new indoor sections in wich most tanks are now stalled so i didnt see the tiger and IS3 that time, except the various pattons and leopards and various WW1 tanks wich are on display
The poor old Brits did quite OK . 7 Jun 1944 when they destroyed 70 of 124 German Tanks of the 21st Panzer Div. The Brits used different tactics They would wait in Ambush and who cares what the US said post war, And as far as loading the Brit tankees did ok They destroyed 4 and disabled one with 5 shots in France leschange? The 17 pounder firefly was made so that Britain and the Canucks had something to fight the Germans at long range and with better penetration the any US tank gun under 90mm. They did not have the luxury of massive numbers and the Brits would not waste 5 to 9 tanks to get one Panther as did Patton And it was a Firefly that got Whitmann
Thank you for this video. My father was a Sherman tank driver/mechanic, rank was Trooper , he was in Italy. I would like to sit in the drivers seat of a Sherman, some day, just to see what he would have seen.
These are a great pair of videos, thank you very much - the background music is irritating though and is not needed with Mr Moran's great narration. WRT "hornet" and "ant", I've Just finished reading one of Ken Tout's books and it seems that in radio chatter that the term "hornet" was used quite a bit (when I first came across it, I thought they were talking about the German Nashorn, but it became quickly apparent "hornet" meant any tank), though I would think inside the turret, they would use plain language as Mr Moran suggests.
The Fetish for the Firefly is around the idea that More is better...When More isn't always better if it's got faults. What you need is Enough, not More.
Fire speed of Firefly Sherman crew was much lower than that of 76 mm gun using Sherman crew. And accuracy of Firefly was relatively poor, especially comparing it to German 7.5 cm KwK 40/L48 gun used by most German AFVs. Penetrating armor is one thing. How much does it caused damaged inside the tank is another issue. In case of Firefly the result was not so brilliant as claimed.
I really enjoy your style of presentation & have gained a far greater insight into how tank design affects battlefield performance than I ever could from some dry recitation of armour thickness, speed, gun capabilities, fuel consumption etc. From other videos, I'm guessing you lecture on various aspects of tanks & their use. Is there somewhere that gives information as to when & where these occur, as I'd like to attend one of your presentations.
Tanks should be evaluated in a troop format, not individually. In battle, individual tanks are unimportant but the cumulative power of tanks working in concert is decisive. Sherman's were the ultimate troop tank in WWII. NOTHING was better or even equal.
yes...which is why it took 6 Shermans tanks to kill one tiger tank 5 to be shot at varying ranges and the last to 'sneak' up behind in the confusion and fire the kill shot from point-blank range
@@grumpyoldman-21 Wow I never thought I'd actually find someone who'd unironically post the "5 to kill 1" bullshit. And even mess it up and say 6 instead of 5. You know, with it being so unbelievably thoroughly debunked by now. If you did even a tiny bit of research you would learn that even the standard 75mm Sherman had favorable kill/death ratios against all German tanks, even the heavy ones. You'd also know that this Sherman could punch right through the front of any German tank at combat ranges. So no, it did not take 5 (or 6) Shermans to kill a Tiger; statistically, it took less than 1. You know what makes this BS even more hilarious? US forces only encountered 3 Tiger Is on the entire western front. So even if the "5 to 1" nonsense was legit, a sample size of 3 instances is laughable. Do some research. Or keep mis-quoting BS you read on forums, it makes you look super duper smart.
I remember reading how Joe Ekins, the man who knocked out 3 Tigers in his first action, had only fired the 17 Pounder 5 times during training. There were two other separate reports out of Normandy where Fireflies knocking out 5 Panthers each with as many shells. The British must have worked out a way to operate them effectively from a cramped turret.
chris hoff iirc Wittmann (the tiger "ace") was killed by a Firefly. Strange how some folks overlook this. Yes "battle" reports are often "confused", but it appears Fireflies really could and DID kill Tigers.
chris hoff- Englishmen were smaller than the average American back then, which made them better suited for tank crewmen than the Yanks. Big guys just don't fit well in tanks and fighter plane cockpits. They're better suited as infantrymen & cannoneers.
Most accounts I have read or heard from British crews who got issued Fireflies were very positive, mainly because they liked the Sherman anyway (a lot more than the Cromwell...) and they now had an 'equalizer' gun. The flash and blast were the main problems mentioned. One tank commander's diary talks about him standing outside the turret and guiding the gunner from there. When it came to firing the gun - cover ears and close eyes, count one, two, three and fire!
Una Peppina 105s breach I don't think was that big compared to the 17lber, remember it was a low velocity howitzer... unless you mean the French 105mm they managed to stick on it later on during the 50s
People always want a big gun in a small tank. I am just wondering how tiny the crew who were assigned to a 105mm Sherman were. I mean we've seen a mere 17 pounder leaves little room to work with.
The 105 was large in diameter, but short in length. Its a low velocity round, so it had quite a bit of room compared to 17 pounder or 76mm equipped M4s.
For a "really small turret" it sits on an enormous turret ring... For perspective the Sherman (and the Pershing after it and it's derivatives like the M46 Patton) had a Turret Ring diameter of 69 inches, which is about 1.75 meters... The Panther for comparison had a turret ring diameter of 1.65 meters... The Tiger's were if I recall properly is bout 1.85 meters... One can put a much larger turret on the Sherman but that'd end up making one tall tank even more comically top heavy...
Actually this is false... Page 197 of "Firepower A History of American Heavy Tanks - R.P. Hunnicutt" shows a measurement both written and pictoral on the section about said tanks that states that the T29 and derivatives have an internal turret ring diameter of 80 inches which is bout two meters and a bit on the ball race...
True for the T32 but the M6A2E1 is also an 80 incher... And yes don't question why I've got these a bit memorized since that book was a part of my childhood... Sadly It was misplaced during one of the many house moves...
Good discussion points at the end of this video. IMHO two things : waiting for a perfect tank would have condemned more tank crew to death fighting in the standard Sherman, so clearly a "firefly today" wins that argument. Second question, tank or tank killer? I would suggest you ask a few ww2 tank crew which version they would rather have been in - I think I can guess the answer.
Except that in most engagement you're off to kill infantrys,field guns or in some cases PZ IV or Stugs which all of it the "normal" Shermans could kill Shermans death rate arent that high
Wow, imagine being a loader in Bastogne going against a tiger right after Xmas 1944, your crew and God knows how many other tanks in your battalion are relying on you to take out a monster tiger 2 and the first round either misses or is a deflection and the t.c. screams for another a/p round to be loaded as the tiger zeros it's 88mm on the firefly due to them being the biggest threat to their tiger.......and the loaders right hand gets smashed on the turret because of that tiny space and he's desperately trying to make the crazy long shell to fit and fire! Amazing people in that generation man, millions and millions never got to have a family of their own...... Really amazing how we've gone from that to being thrown out into a jail cell because the obvious middle aged dude in front of you at the store felt "attacked" when you said to the guy, "sir you dropped your wallet" only to be accosted for "misgendering" a new woman and thrown in prison because everyone is confused and afraid to lose their retirement.
Please do a more unusual tanks. A great one would be the Char B1 which is a French Tank of the early war. Other ones that I would like to see are more German vehicles like the Panzer I or of course the Panzer IV or VI.
The german tankers where told to shoot the lead tank to prevent an advancement and then to shoot the last tank to prevent retreating and then shoot as many of the other vehicles as possible then retreat back to safety it was very effective the most known person using this method was Michael Wittenmenn
Russian Bias- Wittman was killed in combat while commanding a Tiger tank, and when a German anti-tank gun crewman was asked why he had quit firing his gun and surrendered he said, "We ran out of ammunition before you ran out of Shermans." America produced upwards of 58,000 Shermans before the war ended and Germany produced fewer than 1400 (about 1375, I believe) Tigers. Really, were we going to stand on our heads worrying about a crummy 1300-and-some-odd Tigers?
The 17pounder was strong enough to kill any big cat except frontal slope plate of the king tiger the 76mm America used didn't stick out as far and didn't recoil as far back either and it was in a bigger turret
Sherman VC Firefly - not "perfect", a definite improvisation. But it was overall the best way to get that excellent 17-pounder gun into the field, to keep up with and support their tanks, for the British Army. Other solutions were the Archer, and the Valentine tank platform was liked and reliable, but this would have complicated logistics somewhat to have two entirely different vehicles in the same unit. Could a fixed-mount tank destroyer, like the German and Soviet "panzerjagers", have been built from the Sherman, or could something like the M10 "Achilles" have been improvised? I'm sure those alternatives were considered. It was a decent tank-killer WHEN the Brits NEEDED it. Later on, when they got away from the tanks vs. tank destroyer doctrine, their Centurion mounted the 17-pounder at first, before "graduating" to the 84 mm 20-pounder main weapon and finally the L7 105 mm gun. The Comet, which was probably even better overall than the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman, had enough of a main weapon in that 77 mm HV gun to acquit itself on the battlefield, as it would soldier on until 1960.
There are historical sources that confirmed that the Pershing's T26 turret could feasibly be fitted onto the Sherman's turret ring. Unconfirmed sources also said that Brigadier General McLeod Ross once suggested mounting the 17-pounder gun into the T26 turret. Neither proposals ever became a reality. Could the larger T26 turret armed with the 17-pounder gun be a better fit for the Sherman Firefly?
Possibly, but why would you do that? The Centurion was already being put through its field trials and it had been designed to comfortably accommodate the 17 pounder gun with provisions for future gun upgrades.
@@RedOrm68 There's no doubt that the more modern Centurion turned out to be a better long-term option for the British Army instead of an upgraded yet outdated Sherman. The question concerns if it is technically feasible to fit a 17-pounder gun into a T26 turret and in turn fit a 17-pounder gun T26 turret onto a Sherman hull.
My research came across British test results that specifically denigrated the 17pdr's "HE" round for terrible fuse performance. Neither the graze fuse nor the nose fuses worked dependably. For this reason NO High Explosive Ammunition was issued to most Firefly tanks (and precious little to 2pdr and 6pdr crews, either; tank, or otherwise). I would be interested in any perspective you might have on the topic. Also curious to me is the fact that the UK did not demand a CS version, which would complement the "normal" and 17pdr types. We did put the 105mm in, and they got a bunch of those, but surely that wasn't timely (meaning middle of the war). Which brings up a question: which is better (tactical directives and philosophy for perspective for employment also modify this): Turreted or Non-turreted Assault guns for Infantry support? A turret makes your job of laying the gun so much easier, but StuGs are better for absolute rate of fire (per caliber of main weapon), concealment, and onobtrusiveness when maneuvering. So, I would suggest that the StuG is the better working environment for its crew and, therefore, a better match of requirement to hardware.
I did several tours in UK with the US military. Before I left in 2011, I had a chance to interview Joe Ekins, the gunner of the Firefly many believe took out Michael Whitmann's tank. (And yes, many dispute this.) Joe was a very small man. Now that I see just how much room there was in a Firefly turret, his size was definitely an advantage!
Its definitive, Mr. Etkins( A Hero) shot and killed 3 of 4, of a Tiger Tank troop the fourth tank was beyond optimal range and obscured down a slope. That was Wittmann's tank. A Canadian tank troop , Radley Walter's troop(a Hero) was set up behind walls and bushes less than 500 yds from Wittmann's tank. Walters didn't get the kill but he knows that 1 of his troop did. Of course none of the tankers new that Wittmann was in those tigers at the time; they were too busy fighting for their lives. Wittmann's death becomes news later.
This was proven by historian Norm Christie in his series found here on youtube. ( Look up , Norm Christie: Battlefield mysteries Ep.1-panzer ace Michael Wittmann)
@@nicholaspatton1742 It does not matter It was a Firefly that got him . And it must have been a beauty his turret was blown completely off.
It is thought that the turret was blown off by exploding internal ammunition
@@nicholaspatton1742 Thanks for the recommendation! The Christie video was excellent! (Too bad they didn't render the Sherman Firefly in the animations...)
@@nicholaspatton1742 seen that series with Norm Christie , his documentary gives the most convincing case for the death of Whitman I’ve ever seen . Since then I’ve believed it was the Sherbrooke fusiliers who got the final shot in .
"Sir, the 17 pounder won't fit"
"Put it in sideways"
"The radio won't fit"
"Cut a hole and make it stick out in the back"
"The engine's no good!"
"Get 5 car engines and put them together"
Ahh man of culture potential history I see
lol ...it's called creative engineering
Dag Bakka lmao thats called british engineering
British engineering innovation at its best! We will ALWAYS find a way if needed!
@@grumpyoldman-21 I could tell you what one car mechanic called it but I'd be banned.
My uncle,was in the First Armored Division,during WW2.He was a driver on the Sherman,the first one he drove used the radial engine.He often said the only reason he survived WW2 was the fact that the Sherman could usually out manauver most of the German tanks and on the tank Uncle drove the gunner was very good and very fast.Uncle said that whatever the gunner fired at was hit.Way uncle told it common practice was if possible fire into the German turret ring,second round into tracks,call in artillery to finish the job.
My friend Jack loved the 17 pounder gun in the firefly. He found it to be deadly on German armor. Man, I miss him.
Jon English : I think most Brit tankees thought so too. At last they had a gun to defeat the Germans regardless of discomfit . Some people forget the Brits had been fighting in tanks before the US even got there
😂😂😂😂😂
There must have been a big comfort knowing you could shoot back with something effective. I would guess the crews would go to almost any inconvenience if that ensures they had large teeth who could damage the tigers ;)
Not sure if it is still there but there used to be a good Sherman Firefly at the South African War Museum in Pretoria. Worth bearing in mind that the Firefly's were vital in Normandy, because three quarters of the German Panzer divisions, including plenty of Tigers and Panthers, were facing the British and Canadians. 'Hornet' was a tank or a SP gun. I have heard veterans use the term.
FYI Until almost end of JUNE in Normandy the Allies only faced 6 Tiger Is (Tiger tanks of 101st Heavy SS Tank Battalion) and 16 Panthers according to German Army Records! However, many Allie tankers reported facing plenty of 'Ghost' Tigers which were really Panzer MK 4 s it is believed. It was only late on the 26th June with the arrival of some German reinforcements II SS Panzerkorps, consisting of 9th and 10th SS Panzer Divisions that the first Platoon of Tiger 2 and a further Tiger 1 Heavy Tank Battalion arrived East of Caen facing the British & Canadian Divisions attacks..
"oh bugger, the tank is on fire"
Hope he has that copywriterd Great phrase.
that was an excellent closing piece. you did a great job of pointing out the role it ended up filling and why they made the conversion in the first place.
I don't care whether it was good idea of not.
It's gloriously over the top.
Imagine having to spend days and weeks fighting in that much respect for the ww2 tankers
I saw a 76W , with the t26 turret on bovington channel. When are you going there chieftain
Thank you for the tour, my grandfather was conscripted to REME and sent to the Guards Armoured Division who were equipped with Sherman Fireflies. He was already too old for an overseas combat role and retained at the depot for training new crews after the Division left for Normandy.
The movie A Bridge Too Far shows the Guards Armoured Division crossing into the Netherlands and being hit by German antitank gunners and calling in RAF Typhoons for support while on their way to Arnhem. I understand this is a fairly accurate reconstruction of the event (it can be seen on TH-cam).
The Guards Armoured Division was also sent to the Battle of the Bulge where they knocked out a few German tanks trying to cross the river.
I was told that my grandfather was 6ft tall and called himself the Dreamy REME to his family suggesting that these Sherman Fireflies with their Chevrolet engines didn't go wrong much in training.
My Father was in the 44RTR and was a Radio operator/loader in the Firefly from D+1. Went right through Normandy, survived 2 escapes from being hit and ended up in Hamburg.
Excellent presentation. I now know more about what my father had to work with - in 1944-45 he was a tank commander in the New Zealand Division in Italy. He told us stories about what went on there and talked, from time to time, about the Firefly Shermans they had. He said the standard gun fitted to the Sherman was a useful enough weapon but the 17-pounder gave them a whole new dimension in their ability to make holes in things - it was powerful enough to destroy anything it was aimed at. He told us things that your commentary confirmed: when they fired the standard gun they could stand up, looking out of the turret to spot the fall of shot and the muzzle blast was bearable, but the 17-pounder was so violent they had to duck down inside the turret when it fired. He said it was impossible to spot the fall of shot if they were shooting at a target within 1,000 yards, even as flank observers, as they would still be flinching from the tremendous muzzle blast when the shot arrived.
He had little that was kind to say about the multi-bank engines their tanks were fitted with. Originally, the Shermans came with two-stroke GM diesels but when the Americans started their island hopping in the Pacific they wanted all the diesel engines they could get their hands on for their landing craft. The Americans lacked a suitable petrol engine so they created the multi-bank monster and my father said they had endless grief with them. One big drawback was, now being petrol-powered, the tanks caught fire quicker when hit.
That's great. The Music is distracting and doesn't seem appropriate, although it is turned down to a volume where it doesn't interfere with the ability to here the narrative.
"Gunner, traverse left, steady on, 1800, hornet!"
"Er, I'm afraid I don't quite follow you, squadron leader."
"It's perfectly ordinary banter, Squiffy. Gunner, traverse left... steady on... 1800... hornet!
"No, I'm just not understanding banter at all well today. Give us it slower."
"Banter's not the same if you say it slower, Squiffy."
Is this from something?
@@Jason32Bourne Monty Python 'Banter' skit
Aye. Thank you.
Ah..here's the old man, maybe he can decipher your banter....
I have a lot of fun in the VC Firefly in World of Tanks... i really enjoyed this video (and part 1) getting into the details of the modifications and configuration that really made the FireFly such a unique weapon...
There is a good doco available on Australian tests with a 17pndr in a turret in '42, which inputted into the firefly...
One of my favorite tanks of all time. Up there with Matilda, T-34-85 and Challenger II.
If I was facing a Panther, Tiger or Tiger 2 ,I would want to increase my chances of survival. The morale knowing you could take on one alone and even survive was significant, so it was a no brainer a Sherman V Firefly 17Pounder any day than a standard M4 Sherman!
You could knock out both Panther and Tiger with the 75, whether who shots first that it
The firefly at bastogne barracks in belgium is in better condition: go check😉
I beleive that the tanks used in Kelly's Heroes were 76mm guns in early turrets....
Well, I've compared this review with your review of the Israeli M50 'super' Sherman (which had a French gun of similar power to the 17 Pdr). I don't know if the French contractor that adapted the long 75 to the small Sherman turret had experience of the Firefly - but they added a mantlet 'extension' which gave much better room inside the turret. Too bad the Brits didn't decide to add some kind of extension to the mantlet - or just use the less powerful (but still impressive) 77mm in the Firefly. Note that the 17 Pdr had a propellant cartridge 583x135mm; for comparison, the US 76mm M1A1 had a 539x93mm cartridge and the British 77mm had a 420x116mm. The relatively short length of the 77mm cartridge is very handy in the confines of a turret!
So according to Ken Tout, a typicall platoon would have 3x regulat 75mm Shermans and 1x Firefly Sherman. The tactic was for the regular tanks to scout ahead and when a target was located bring up the Firefly and coordinate its fire onto the target.
This would probably go some way to mitigating the issues of firing the 17lbr
I like the unbiased evaluations
1968lr: well you wont get it here.
Love the series, hate the background music. When watching multiple episodes the music become annoyingly monotonous. It repeats over and over and over until your head starts to split open. It gets to the point you can no longer hear the host, just the annoying music.
did we ask?
I could watch these all day.
Is that a Jagdpanzer 38 in the background with all the periscopes and scissor scope? Did Sweden use those?
This guy has all crew skills and perks unlocked.
I always heard that it was it was a tight fit for the crew installing the 17 pounder because of it's massive breach block but I never realized to what level it was, especially for the gunner, sitting and aiming all crooked and twisting like a contortionist to lay the gun, honestly I would feel sorry for him...! Anyway I found this video very interesting and I like it very much! Good job again!
“Hornet” is indeed a tank, and there are oral histories / personal anecdotes of it actually being used in action. “Ant” is a new one on me though.
I’m not so sure about the “hoarding” though - leaving aside Italy - in NW Europe policy was for one Firefly per tank troop (ie one in four), so they would have been in the van along with their troop for any advance. Maybe they covered the rear position of the troop I dunno, tho the troop would still be at the spearhead. Firefly numbers increased throughout 44-45 and at start on campaign, June 44, it may be that they were in scarcer numbers so deployed differently. I did read somewhere that firing whilst moving was not advisable, so maybe it covered its troop’s movements over bounds (ie a fire and movement tactic).
Probably noteworthy that the tank’s “greatest hits”, eg Ekins and/or Rad at Gaumesnil, Henry at Bretteville or Harris at Lingevres are from Fireflys in a defensive role firing from cover or hidden.
There is a distinction between the 17pdr M-10 and the Firefly. M-10’s were crewed by Royal Artillery as an SP gun, rather than as “tank destroyer”. Firefly was crewed by tank regiments and operated under British armoured doctrine (which gradually had its flaws wrung out in 44). Turret/breech etc on M-10 was all different, none of the Firefly mods - basically the towed 17pdr stuck on a tank chassis. They were used as a mobile a/tk stop line while the Firefly was employed a tank in a direct role.
Joe Ekins, the gunner in a Firefly destroyed four tanks in a day, including three Tigers - numbers 312, 009 & 314. So he never found the Firefly interior a problem.
It's still not a great interior. To be honest Joe seems to have been an exceptional gunner if anything.
I like thd firefly as a tank, it certainly gained a reputation against panthers and tigers, however I wouldn't really like to fight in one.
Have one nearby, but be in a 75mm or Churchill instead.
CrampuStheCane kinda like the BAR, loved by everyone except for the guy using
Regular M4: Considerably more comfortable, practical and all-around useful, especially in the 80% of circumstances when you meet only infantry and common-tier armor (StuG IIIs and Panzer IVs). Easier to repair, faster to replace, cheaper, more common, more trustworthy... etc. etc. etc.
Firefly: Useless against infantry, painful to operate 24/7, held together with spit and bailing wire and entirely uncertain if they're hitting what they're aiming at... but... if you run into a Big Cat, 30% of the tanks in your company aren't going to die pointlessly and fruitlessly as distractions so one guy can get a flank shot... at which point the Big Cat recognizes he's being flanked and calmly retreats in reverse, leaving you with multiple dead Shermans and no kill to show for it.
The Firefly wins.
Johan Faul or just get a 76mm and call it a day.
Jacob Chang Gee thanks Leslie McNair. The 76mm was just another way for Ordnance to save bucks, resurrecting a shitty old WW1 era design (the 3" gun, which was only considered "high-velocity" if your mind was stuck in several decades prior, which of course Ordnance's was). The 17-pounder by comparison was a much later design that could handle vastly more pressure due to a bottleneck design instead of the antiquated straight case on the 3"/76mm. It also had a better cross-section for inherent AP ability, and hummed along at around 100 meters per second faster than the blunter, fatter 76mm. Both of them had a useless HE shell, which is far more forgivable in the 17, given that it has a much smaller cross section but is pushed by 1.5 kilos more powder than the 76mm.
Would have sucked to be the guy crammed into the turret next to it, but the very first time (if ever) they ran headfirst into a Big Cat and got lucky enough to get the first shot... I bet they were glad as hell they weren't in a 76mm Sherman. Might as well take the 75mm, at least then you can put out a lot of smoke in his line of fire if he doesn't kill you with the first shot.
Americans and British seem to love the M3 Lee, it's chassis is the base for so many tanks such as most Shermans Firefly and some arty
Well I mean they used it's running gear and stuff, for awhile anyway, not sure if that qualifies as the whole chassis. It worked great, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Later on with HVSS , etc, stuff was changed up though. Also with the M7 Priest once there were alot of Shermans around they made them with Sherman chassis.
You still need to do a review of the 76 Sherman.
I hope you do the Ram some day, I would love to see a close up of it.
Considering all the disadvantages of the Firefly, Joe Ekins must have been an awesome tank gunner, 3 tigers in 12 minutes from 6 shots.
There is another version of that story. There were Canadian Shermans involved on the opposite side of the field, also shooting at the Tigers.
@@RedRider1600 Yes, they are the ones who probably got Witman, however Ekins 3 tiger kills have been confirmed.
TRX : I read it was 5 in 6 shots
@@hoatattis7283 Ekins was interviewed, he said he fired 6 times, one ranging shot and one kill shot for each of 3 Tigers. The tank commander pulled them back into cover between each pair of shots.
All these tank videos are great. The music is not all that annoying. Really appreciate them all. Tanks a lot! 😃
I heard a story, I think it was something Lindybeige read in a video of his, where a group of Shermans were on line firing at approaching German tanks, with less than hope for results. A new tank comes up next to the author's tank and fires. It was a firefly, and the muzzle break was even with the author's partially open TC hatch. The muzzle blast was so great, they thought for a second that they'd been hit!
Every time I watch these videos of tanks I have in my garage in WOT
I always want to go play them,
*Thanks for your informative video, Have a great time and be safe!*
I will not try to contradict the fact that the american 76, which had a turret designed for the bigger gun, performed over all better, but the strength of the firefly was that each unit with one attached could take on tigers and panthers head on, as the 17 pdrs penetration capabilities outclassed other western allied guns against heavy armour. So if you take it for what it is, a tank destroyer attached to a troop of shermans, i would argue the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
That is actually a fair and logical argument. My one caveat is that the only 17 pdr round with appreciably better penetration than the 76mm HVAP was its sabot round, which was horrifically inaccurate. However, that is assuming that 76s with HVAP were available, which for a time they really weren't ,so fair is fair.
95spades And how many Tigers did they actually encounter?
Fair point, IF tigers were the only tanks with too good armour for a normal 75 or even a 76 unless point blank, and IF all your tanks had 17 pdrs. Panters, while not extremely common, where numerous compared to tigers, and with equally effective frontal armour (also jagdpanters, but I don't really know how many of those there where). So my point is not 'firefly op must replace all guns', but rather that having 75s on 3 out of four tanks that is far superior to the long 76 in terms of high explosive - which is the most important ammunition as tank on tank combat itself was not extremely common compared to "soft" targets - and still good enough to deal with stugs and pz IVs.
So, in conclusion, rather than having a rather effective anti tank gun with poor high explosive capabilities but a good crew compartment on the entire units tanks, it's equally or even more effective to have your majority of tanks fitted with a gun suitable for the most common targets, ie infantry, gun emplacements, mgs etc, and one with a real good anti tank gun in each group for when it's really needed, regardless of how roomy the turret is on that particular tank. Now, you might think it's reasonable to just go with decent in bulk and count your losses when you encounter one of those rare tanks or can't support your infantry as much as you might want, but I personally think giving every unit a better fighting chance on the expense of comfort is a better way to go.
Honestly I think that the way we did it towards the end of the war- I believe the preferred mix was 3 105s and 1 76mm- was pretty darn good, and as a British equivalent a Firefly with 3 normal 75s is good too.
Yeah, I was thinking 44 when the firefly was introduced. As far as I'm aware, the americans fielded homogenous units at the time, which limits options, so that's what I think could be improved. Which it was. So it seams we think the same thing here really.
are there any is3's you can do
yes pls
Expierement_1 he's done the is4 and is7 have a look at those cuz I don't think the is3 is going to be too much different from those two... other than maybe being even worse inside
There is one in Kubinka (I've seen it), but knowing how some tank's internals there have been preserved (I'm looking at you, Maus), not sure if it'd be possible to do a video on the inside.
While Kubinka is pretty bad at taking care of their tanks, the Maus should not be used as an example because the turret is from one prototype that had its ammo rack detonated while the hull is from an incomplete example.
there is one here in brussels, but im not sure what state its in, or even if its still there for that matter.
last time i checked they were building new indoor sections in wich most tanks are now stalled so i didnt see the tiger and IS3 that time, except the various pattons and leopards and various WW1 tanks wich are on display
The poor old Brits did quite OK . 7 Jun 1944 when they destroyed 70 of 124 German Tanks of the 21st Panzer Div.
The Brits used different tactics They would wait in Ambush and who cares what the US said post war,
And as far as loading the Brit tankees did ok They destroyed 4 and disabled one with 5 shots in France leschange?
The 17 pounder firefly was made so that Britain and the Canucks had something to fight the Germans at long range and with better penetration the any US tank gun under 90mm. They did not have the luxury of massive numbers and the Brits would not waste 5 to 9 tanks to get one Panther as did Patton
And it was a Firefly that got Whitmann
In spite of the urgency of the time, allowances for tank crewmen should never be ignored!!
Could you please do a review of a Hellcat tank destroyer. My Uncle Bill was a tank commander that went from the beaches to Cologne Germany.
No, they definately used codes names, especiallt "Hornet", in combat in all the books by veterans that i've read.
Thank you for this video. My father was a Sherman tank driver/mechanic, rank was Trooper , he was in Italy. I would like to sit in the drivers seat of a Sherman, some day, just to see what he would have seen.
Looks good on paper, but really sucks since it’s so cramped inside, firing the 17pdr you need to close your eyes before firing.
The description of a firefly crewman made me laugh out loud :D
No eyebrows and no hair below the beret-line..
Amazing summary.
This is great - your dedication and completeness is terrific. Please keep this up!
MORE PLEASE!! Thank you for doing another Sherman, now if we could get a later Sherman like the Easy8?
Thank you Wargaming for keeping the history alive!
It gave heavy tank performance in a medium. Its taking out German heavies is legendary.
These are a great pair of videos, thank you very much - the background music is irritating though and is not needed with Mr Moran's great narration. WRT "hornet" and "ant", I've Just finished reading one of Ken Tout's books and it seems that in radio chatter that the term "hornet" was used quite a bit (when I first came across it, I thought they were talking about the German Nashorn, but it became quickly apparent "hornet" meant any tank), though I would think inside the turret, they would use plain language as Mr Moran suggests.
Well done again Chieftain! I love your videos! Please upload more of em!
Cheers from Hungary!
The Fetish for the Firefly is around the idea that More is better...When More isn't always better if it's got faults. What you need is Enough, not More.
Fire speed of Firefly Sherman crew was much lower than that of 76 mm gun using Sherman crew. And accuracy of Firefly was relatively poor, especially comparing it to German 7.5 cm KwK 40/L48 gun used by most German AFVs. Penetrating armor is one thing. How much does it caused damaged inside the tank is another issue. In case of Firefly the result was not so brilliant as claimed.
Better is the enemy of good.
@@matshagglund3550 the accuracy wasn't a limit of speed. The gun sucked in accuracy in tests
The Firefly was the only Allied 3” tank gun that could go nose-on with German armor encountered in the ETO.
@@Snookynibbles you need to watch more chieftain videos, a. Your wrong and b. It was badly flawed
Weren't the 76mm Shermans ready for D-Day, but the US armored force refused to deploy them?
I really enjoy your style of presentation & have gained a far greater insight into how tank design affects battlefield performance than I ever could from some dry recitation of armour thickness, speed, gun capabilities, fuel consumption etc.
From other videos, I'm guessing you lecture on various aspects of tanks & their use.
Is there somewhere that gives information as to when & where these occur, as I'd like to attend one of your presentations.
another great video. i don't no of another source that gives such detailed information and insight into tanks
Tanks should be evaluated in a troop format, not individually. In battle, individual tanks are unimportant but the cumulative power of tanks working in concert is decisive. Sherman's were the ultimate troop tank in WWII. NOTHING was better or even equal.
yes...which is why it took 6 Shermans tanks to kill one tiger tank
5 to be shot at varying ranges and the last to 'sneak' up behind in the confusion and fire the kill shot from point-blank range
@@grumpyoldman-21 Wow I never thought I'd actually find someone who'd unironically post the "5 to kill 1" bullshit. And even mess it up and say 6 instead of 5. You know, with it being so unbelievably thoroughly debunked by now. If you did even a tiny bit of research you would learn that even the standard 75mm Sherman had favorable kill/death ratios against all German tanks, even the heavy ones. You'd also know that this Sherman could punch right through the front of any German tank at combat ranges. So no, it did not take 5 (or 6) Shermans to kill a Tiger; statistically, it took less than 1.
You know what makes this BS even more hilarious? US forces only encountered 3 Tiger Is on the entire western front. So even if the "5 to 1" nonsense was legit, a sample size of 3 instances is laughable. Do some research. Or keep mis-quoting BS you read on forums, it makes you look super duper smart.
@@grumpyoldman-21 that is a lie actually
that was awesome chief!
Absolutely awesome video! Thank you!!
I remember reading how Joe Ekins, the man who knocked out 3 Tigers in his first action, had only fired the 17 Pounder 5 times during training. There were two other separate reports out of Normandy where Fireflies knocking out 5 Panthers each with as many shells. The British must have worked out a way to operate them effectively from a cramped turret.
Promoted to radio operator.
chris hoff iirc Wittmann (the tiger "ace") was killed by a Firefly.
Strange how some folks overlook this.
Yes "battle" reports are often "confused", but it appears Fireflies really could and DID kill Tigers.
chris hoff- Englishmen were smaller than the average American back then, which made them better suited for tank crewmen than the Yanks. Big guys just don't fit well in tanks and fighter plane cockpits. They're better suited as infantrymen & cannoneers.
Most accounts I have read or heard from British crews who got issued Fireflies were very positive, mainly because they liked the Sherman anyway (a lot more than the Cromwell...) and they now had an 'equalizer' gun. The flash and blast were the main problems mentioned. One tank commander's diary talks about him standing outside the turret and guiding the gunner from there. When it came to firing the gun - cover ears and close eyes, count one, two, three and fire!
Makes me wonder how they managed to bother squeezing the 105mm into those turrets.
Una Peppina 105s breach I don't think was that big compared to the 17lber, remember it was a low velocity howitzer... unless you mean the French 105mm they managed to stick on it later on during the 50s
if i remember right, that turret is a bit bigger than the fireflys
The 105mm was a low velocity howitzer so had quite a small recoil assembly
People always want a big gun in a small tank. I am just wondering how tiny the crew who were assigned to a 105mm Sherman were. I mean we've seen a mere 17 pounder leaves little room to work with.
The 105 was large in diameter, but short in length. Its a low velocity round, so it had quite a bit of room compared to 17 pounder or 76mm equipped M4s.
I prefer the M26 Pershing tank to the Firefly.
For a "really small turret" it sits on an enormous turret ring... For perspective the Sherman (and the Pershing after it and it's derivatives like the M46 Patton) had a Turret Ring diameter of 69 inches, which is about 1.75 meters... The Panther for comparison had a turret ring diameter of 1.65 meters... The Tiger's were if I recall properly is bout 1.85 meters...
One can put a much larger turret on the Sherman but that'd end up making one tall tank even more comically top heavy...
Same turret ring as the T29 heavy tank as well. So, plonk that turret and you got a good 4m tall monster.
Actually this is false... Page 197 of "Firepower A History of American Heavy Tanks - R.P. Hunnicutt" shows a measurement both written and pictoral on the section about said tanks that states that the T29 and derivatives have an internal turret ring diameter of 80 inches which is bout two meters and a bit on the ball race...
Sorry not the T29... I was thinking of the T32. I was just thinking of the M6A2E-1 project. I have read his book.
True for the T32 but the M6A2E1 is also an 80 incher... And yes don't question why I've got these a bit memorized since that book was a part of my childhood... Sadly It was misplaced during one of the many house moves...
The M6s, being based around the 69" turret ring originally. I just completely blanked out on the turret diameter for those, and misinterpreted it.
Background "music" is pretty annoying. Very good analysis
The music is really annyoing
I'd love to see an IS-2 Mod 44 at some point, especially given that there's one in england.
Love the new intro, wish there was a release of the full intro song
Nicely Done....Thank you for your good work.
it feels so cool i have bin ther and tucht it
Could you guys try to get a tour on the T14 heavy tank?
Apparently more difficult than it sounds. UK considers it a radiation hazard due to cracked driver's dials.
and the one in the US apparently had the bottom fall out of theirs
There were 140 76mm Shermans that were left in England on June 6,1944. The American commanders did not want them.
I bet you don’t know why
He should do a video on the a.30 challenger
any notice them flashes at 19:31 ?
connor hanson yes
flash photography I think.
That's just the 2 inch smoke bombs igniting
Nuclear attack?
Good discussion points at the end of this video. IMHO two things : waiting for a perfect tank would have condemned more tank crew to death fighting in the standard Sherman, so clearly a "firefly today" wins that argument. Second question, tank or tank killer? I would suggest you ask a few ww2 tank crew which version they would rather have been in - I think I can guess the answer.
Except that in most engagement you're off to kill infantrys,field guns or in some cases PZ IV or Stugs which all of it the "normal" Shermans could kill
Shermans death rate arent that high
Excellent video.
Wow, imagine being a loader in Bastogne going against a tiger right after Xmas 1944, your crew and God knows how many other tanks in your battalion are relying on you to take out a monster tiger 2 and the first round either misses or is a deflection and the t.c. screams for another a/p round to be loaded as the tiger zeros it's 88mm on the firefly due to them being the biggest threat to their tiger.......and the loaders right hand gets smashed on the turret because of that tiny space and he's desperately trying to make the crazy long shell to fit and fire!
Amazing people in that generation man, millions and millions never got to have a family of their own......
Really amazing how we've gone from that to being thrown out into a jail cell because the obvious middle aged dude in front of you at the store felt "attacked" when you said to the guy, "sir you dropped your wallet" only to be accosted for "misgendering" a new woman and thrown in prison because everyone is confused and afraid to lose their retirement.
Now was the added rockets on the sherman Firefly in Company of heros 2 Game hog wash or was that really a thing ? Im curious
I know thew added rockets to shermans, so its possible they did it to firefly aswll
well the sherman cantaloupe was designed for that. this add on seemed made up having two unguided rockets mounted to either side of the turret
No, they did really exist - think only the Coldstream Guards' Fireflys had them.
Please do a more unusual tanks. A great one would be the Char B1 which is a French Tank of the early war.
Other ones that I would like to see are more German vehicles like the Panzer I or of course the Panzer IV or VI.
very interesting, thanks!
I don't see why they had not expanded the turret particularly above the space where the engine is housed.
That saying about no eyebrows I've also heard Russian tank crews say recently in a ww2 documentary
The german tankers where told to shoot the lead tank to prevent an advancement and then to shoot the last tank to prevent retreating and then shoot as many of the other vehicles as possible then retreat back to safety it was very effective the most known person using this method was Michael Wittenmenn
Russian Bias- Wittman was killed in combat while commanding a Tiger tank, and when a German anti-tank gun crewman was asked why he had quit firing his gun and surrendered he said, "We ran out of ammunition before you ran out of Shermans." America produced upwards of 58,000 Shermans before the war ended and Germany produced fewer than 1400 (about 1375, I believe) Tigers. Really, were we going to stand on our heads worrying about a crummy 1300-and-some-odd Tigers?
Did America use the firefly or just UK and Canada, I heard America had the easy 8
The 17pounder was strong enough to kill any big cat except frontal slope plate of the king tiger the 76mm America used didn't stick out as far and didn't recoil as far back either and it was in a bigger turret
Sherman VC Firefly - not "perfect", a definite improvisation. But it was overall the best way to get that excellent 17-pounder gun into the field, to keep up with and support their tanks, for the British Army. Other solutions were the Archer, and the Valentine tank platform was liked and reliable, but this would have complicated logistics somewhat to have two entirely different vehicles in the same unit. Could a fixed-mount tank destroyer, like the German and Soviet "panzerjagers", have been built from the Sherman, or could something like the M10 "Achilles" have been improvised? I'm sure those alternatives were considered. It was a decent tank-killer WHEN the Brits NEEDED it. Later on, when they got away from the tanks vs. tank destroyer doctrine, their Centurion mounted the 17-pounder at first, before "graduating" to the 84 mm 20-pounder main weapon and finally the L7 105 mm gun. The Comet, which was probably even better overall than the M4A3E8 "Easy Eight" Sherman, had enough of a main weapon in that 77 mm HV gun to acquit itself on the battlefield, as it would soldier on until 1960.
can anyone help with info on firefly ARCHER ,in 5 troop sherwood rangers yeomanry
There are historical sources that confirmed that the Pershing's T26 turret could feasibly be fitted onto the Sherman's turret ring. Unconfirmed sources also said that Brigadier General McLeod Ross once suggested mounting the 17-pounder gun into the T26 turret. Neither proposals ever became a reality. Could the larger T26 turret armed with the 17-pounder gun be a better fit for the Sherman Firefly?
Possibly, but why would you do that? The Centurion was already being put through its field trials and it had been designed to comfortably accommodate the 17 pounder gun with provisions for future gun upgrades.
@@RedOrm68 There's no doubt that the more modern Centurion turned out to be a better long-term option for the British Army instead of an upgraded yet outdated Sherman. The question concerns if it is technically feasible to fit a 17-pounder gun into a T26 turret and in turn fit a 17-pounder gun T26 turret onto a Sherman hull.
Great stuff
I don’t generally like British WW2 vehicles but the Sherman Firefly is my all time favorite tank
Heresy! Churchill is beautiful!
Vc is mean personal inside Tank WC?
Grunt not a tanker but I have been to the wars and Yep I would rather have good enough NOW than wait for perfect later.
A pitty, 've really wanted to know how they stored the shells in the radio ooerator's place
My research came across British test results that specifically denigrated the 17pdr's "HE" round for terrible fuse performance. Neither the graze fuse nor the nose fuses worked dependably. For this reason NO High Explosive Ammunition was issued to most Firefly tanks (and precious little to 2pdr and 6pdr crews, either; tank, or otherwise). I would be interested in any perspective you might have on the topic.
Also curious to me is the fact that the UK did not demand a CS version, which would complement the "normal" and 17pdr types. We did put the 105mm in, and they got a bunch of those, but surely that wasn't timely (meaning middle of the war).
Which brings up a question: which is better (tactical directives and philosophy for perspective for employment also modify this): Turreted or Non-turreted Assault guns for Infantry support? A turret makes your job of laying the gun so much easier, but StuGs are better for absolute rate of fire (per caliber of main weapon), concealment, and onobtrusiveness when maneuvering. So, I would suggest that the StuG is the better working environment for its crew and, therefore, a better match of requirement to hardware.
I'd assume they never wanted a CS version of the sherman since they had the churchill and deemed that adequate for the task.
and the 75mm shermans which had a much better high explosive performance
Do one on the Ontos.
I really like the Firefly, although the job of the gunner and loader must have been hard.