My dad recently published a book about the Sentinel that also goes over, in detail, the recoil fix the aussies developed for the 17 pounder, would make another great addition to your information sources as his book takes most if not all the scattered information regarding the sentinel and puts it into one neat package. The book is called "The Australian Cruiser Tank" by Jason Belgrave
@@PoisoningShadow671 Yeah, it's pretty hilarious that that's the reason for the double-barrel 25-pdr. BUt really, it makes perfect sense. The Aussies were designing a 17-pdr upgrade to the Sentinel well before they actually *had* any 17-pdrs delivered to them, so double 25-pdrs was easily the best way to test how it'd handle the recoil. It's kind of too bad that the Sentinels never got used outside of training, because they were clearly a better tank than they had any business being coming from a nation that had never made a tank before. In no way a perfect design, but how many other tank designers could accomplish so much with so little?
AC IV 17-pdr Armed Sentinel Cruiser Tank. Their is 1 prototype that never saw combat though an interesting odd achievement by the Aussies few know about. Austrian AC3 Thunderbolt saw one production with roughly 150 of 200 orders cancelled in 1943 though why seems more like internal military Bureaucracy Austrian AC3 Thunderbolt didn't see combat though they tried to get it in combat AC IB of the sentinel had a QF 6-pounder gun more then ample to take on anything the Japanese had in the pacific, south east Asia & Oceania. AC IB housed a British QF 25 pounder gun & a few did see combat unlike the two types of 17pounder sentinels that had various complications. It is impressive mind that Australia comparable tank to the USA mind it did house 3 USA Cadillac V8 engines as Australia didn't have any real automotive industry today or let alone back in ww2. Australia frankly built a superior tank to anything Italy & japan had yet is considered a minor power in ww2 unlike the 2 mentioned Axis nations. Mind Australia only built some 65 tanks as how many tanks do you need being such an isolated continent? Australia had to prioritise naval construction & aircraft over tanks.
A major but often overlooked factor in why the US never adopted the Firefly during the war was simply because they didn't want the complications to supply lines that would have been caused by the ammo- they'd either have to rely on the UK for Firefly ammo or take the time to retool an existing factory to produce it. The decision was made that the American 76 mm guns that were starting to be put onto Shermans were, while not quite as good as the 17 pounder, still sufficient.
There were certainly legitimate reasons why the US didn't adopt the gun but at the same time much of it was likely due to national pride. The US wanted to use their own guns in their own tanks.
@@ConeOfArc I'd say the abundance of practical limitations are the bigger reason than national pride. The American 76 fit better in the Sherman's redesigned turret (far fewer ergonomics issues + maintains the stabilizer), 76s were already being made, ammo already in stockpiles, and no need to heft enormous 17pdr shells inside a tank not designed to carry such a huge gun.
@@ConeOfArcI think I have to disagree. In Addition to the other reasons mentioned, why would the Americans suddenly be too proud to use a British gun, when they had done exactly that prior with the 57mm M1.
On the contrary, tests had found that the 76mm did better than the 17 pounder for one major reason, long range accuracy. The 17 pounders best AP ammunition was the Sabot round, which at this time was wildly inaccurate after 500 yards.
Soldier: Sir! The gun won't fit! Churchill: Put it sideways! Soldier: The radio won't fit! Churchill: Cut a hole and have it stick out the back! Soldier: The engine's not good! CHADhill: *GET 5 CAR ENGINES AND PUT IT TOGETHER!*
Interestingly not very accurate, at least for Instance the 5 engines was an American idea but rarely used by them, the gun technically was not in sideways but close, the most accurate part is the radio being put in a box on the outside of the turret. But never less. It is still a funny meme.
In War Thunder at least it's slightly helpful to have him to replace a useful crewmember and keep you in the fight longer. As for real life I'd assume the driver is happy to have an assistant when his arms get tired.
@@danielspoon1234 You said it for as an Engineer till my failed health I use draughtmen board & not CAD. You only use CAD to impress the lament, investors or hand out copies to those that pencil marks confuse on the work floor. Most great designs were 1st scribbled out roughly on the back of cigarette packet, bog roll or similar for when an idea comes best to get it on paper handy unless your like myself with good mental retention that can render objects in my minds eye just like my father that is an engineer-former royal marine engineer. Engineers number less then 15 million globally & they keep everything operating. We have a massive shortage of personal & most of us have retired or quiet as engineers are over worked with no pay to reflect nor unwanted thanks for our efforts. My father sees o reason to work living of his patents & myself I can make anything I want as I'm not having a diversity hire or lefty ponce claim my works as theirs. Few to no indentions or works were a team effort but 1 mind & those that say other wise are full of cobblers looking for stealing the laurels of another!
Im 26 I build retaining walls I'm currently working on building my second timber boat It's all in my head, I like 3d software but I have no experience using it I usually just scribble down frame and hull designs and shapes and make them up in my head as I produce it I don't want to sound condescending with my initial comment but this new world is only new and people have been making things appear out of there heads since before the cave paintings where around I'm sure of it
Some them old tanks where just plates that layed together then got welded very simple yet very well thought out wish I knew more carpentry and joinery as that's where I struggle building my boats, we don't make joins in masonry so I gotta think a bit lok
My dad was a tank driver during the war. He trained on the CDL tanks with the 49th RTR at Lowther Castle. He was transferred to the 4/7th RDG just after Arnhem, driving Fireflies. He said the Multibank was an OK engine, but they had to crank it about 100 times to get the oil round when first starting if l remember correctly?. The 17pdr made a helluva bang when fired.... like the Crack Of Doom, someone once said ! I. He could attest to that, as he had severely damaged hearing in his right ear for the rest of his life after his time in Fireflies. The 4/7th did have great success with the 17pdr when Sgt Harris and his gunner Tpr Mckillop knocked out 5 Panther's in quick succession during the battle at Lingevres during the Normandy campaign. The Firefly is much maligned in some quarter's, but it was basically only ever a stop gap measure, that came along at just the right time, that is, when it really counted. It was a very potent weapon mounted on the tried and tested Sherman and proved to be very effective against the heavy German armour right to the end of the war.
Is there no evidence of the Firefly getting it's name from the Flashback caused by the gun? I feel like that's a more plausible reason for it, because the cabin would effectively fill with little embers as the powder burns off in the air.
For a non-tanker, you dismiss gun depression pretty blithely. As a former Abrams commander, one of the greatest strengths of that tank is the ability to work a reverse slope, or even small depression in the ground, using berm drills.
It's certainly an advantage but it's a very over exaggerated feature of vehicles in my opinion. This seems to stem from gaming where good depression makes a vehicle better on Ridgelines or hulldown positions. Obviously this does translate to the real world as well but not to the same extent as the closer ranges of video game tank engagements
one of my fathers friends was a Canadian Tanker and fought in Italy. his name was Elwood Martin, his son was my chemistry teacher in HS. he rarely ever spoke about what happened to him during the war.
I am chilean, it's interesting you mentioned our variant. It was modernized and used until the inception of the leopard, really a long useful life. Good video 👍
The shortcoming of the 75mm wasn't an inability to engage German armor, it was its inability to engage German armor at range. I think the "magic number" was 1km, if I remember right.
@lazynow1 Yes, they kept upgrading the gun because it wouldn't penetrate concrete in support of infantry? The 17lb-er wasn't implemented because the 75 (or short 105!!!) wasn't good against emplacements. But because they were mediocre to bad against armor. I'm old enough I've not only read books (almost all of which the "experts" said the M4 was a dogshit platform), but I've had the chance to actually talk to WWII Vets. US Armor doctrine changed a LOT over the course of the war, particularly when the 3rd Army pushed Berlin. And after the war? Dedicated Tank Destroyers went the way of the dinosaur. For good reason.
The 75 and 105 could take out the Big Cats from a distance by shooting low at their road wheels and tracks. Those were vulnerable to AP and HE. The 105 also had HEAT rounds to use against armor and bunkers. The US M4 users liked the short barrel 75 and 105 since those allowed 360 degree turret transverse in close confines and forests.
@@MrAcuta73Thankfully you talked to the veterans who would've told you the M4 was an excellent platform and you've probably been able to read enough now to know it was the best medium of the war
@@MrAcuta73... And the M3 75mm was more than capable of knocking out Panzer 4s at range since the Panzer 4 was an inferior platform with only 80mm of armor
The multi bank was a great engine, like anything it had some teething issues but once figures out it was onenof the most reliable engines in a sherman. It had a large amount of ready parts beinging a mass produced engine and most mechanics already knew how to work on it besides the new crankshaft and housing.
The Multibank was hilariously reliable gm sent a specialist tech for ever 10 or so shipped and the reports where that the engines were "more reliable than expected"
@@Simon_NonymousSimon u had a problem getting to Arnhem on time. Sorry, no offense meant. That was terrible of me to say. You should have thrown a Canadian Tanker group up that road first. The UK had no problem throwing a lot of us in first at Dieppe and other tough situations. Of course it was Monty more than you kind sir. Neither one of us made any WW2 decisions.
The 17 Pounder had one thing that made it less desirable for the US as an tank mounted gun. Due to its high velocity the HE shells had to have much thicker walls to survive firing and so carried less explosive filler, even less than the same bore diameter US 76mm shells. The majority of of targets that tanks fought were soft targets like infantry and AT guns so they liked having a good HE shell. This was one reason US commanders resisted getting the 76mm armed Shermans so it wasn’t likely the 17 Pounder would be adopted. The 17 Pounder also had a problem during the war in that its APDS shell which had a very high penetration was rather inaccurate. I’ve read the reason for this was the high velocity combined with the alloy used for the sabot meant it would slightly melt and stop it from breaking away from the penetrator cleanly. The Canadians developed a different design called a “pot sabot” that helped with this. And the 77mm GF gun the Comet had used the same projectiles as the 17 Pounder but had a slightly smaller propellant charge which also solved the problem.
Note the Americans HE round for the 76mm had that problem. We got around it by (amongst other things) reducing the propellant charge which, although not quite as big a bang as the 75mm, was way better than the 76mm. The German heavy armour was largely decimated before the Americans had to face it. As for the APDS round, we hadn't learned, at that stage, that you cannot use a muzzle brake with that. The rest of the time, the 17 pounder was more than accurate enough
1. Highly inaccurate???? Stephen A Hart " Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 " Page 64 and I quote "Sgt Finneys Firefly Tank No4 'Orenburg' ----spotted two Panzer IVs moving to the west side of the main road at the prodigious range of 1645m In a brilliant piece of shooting gunner fired two shots and brewed up both Panzers " end quote 2. Page 23 of the same book. Firefly Ammunition AP. / APC / APCBC / APDS /HE So the Firefly did have HE and that was NOT the reason the US did not want It was logistics it saved carrying foreign ammunition and the US reluctance to use British Equipment
@@hughsmith2657 This is from Tanks of the World by David Miller and I quote inter alia " but it was still far ahead of any gun carried on Allied AFVs at that time" end quote
My grandfather joined REME on the day it was formed and was sent to Guards Armoured Division. His job was to service Sherman Fireflies during training (pre D Day). He called himself the Dreamy REME because there was so little work to do, I guess that once they'd sorted the engines and guns they looked after themselves. He was a London taxi owner driver before the war so maybe the Chrysler engines weren't too big a mystery for him. He did not go overseas and remained with the Guards Armoured Division training new crews.
I saw the Firefly at Bovington a week ago, when I told my story to the veteran curator at the door he led me straight to the tank, he said my story was worth getting off his seat for.... many thanks. When I saw the Guards Armoured Division tank that my grandfather may have know, may have worked on, it was an emotional moment, the curator said that veterans and relatives often felt that way with vehicles they had connections to. The Sherman Firefly looks modern ever against much newer Russian tanks in the Bovington collection. Thanks for an informative documentary.
The 1977 war movie, “A Bridge Too Far” has many Sherman Fireflies in action. It’s the largest gathering of Fireflies in one movie! Many of them were revived to operational status from museums!
And the first Firefly was likely taken out by a PzIV. Besides having a certainly great gun the Firefly was vulnerable to pretty much every German tank from quite a long range.
@wanderschlosser1857 Actually, firefly losses were relatively low since they were deployed almost like tank destroyers. Also its more impressive when a relatively smaller tank is able to destroy a much bigger, overhyped, tank.
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 Don't know, probably because you interpret this into it? I didn't write anything like it. I just wanted to point out that Firefly's are commonly described as Tiger-killing super tanks completely ignoring that they still were Shermans after all. It was a stop gap to make the very capable 17 pounder mobile until a new designed tank was available. The Achilles was a similar attempt and it took until the Comet that the gun got a suitable carriage. Nonetheless was the Firefly a very dangerous opponent when correctly deployed as Wittmann and many others found out.
Great job on my favorite ww2 tank, I think the firefly was a lesson in “good enough now” instead of “perfect but too late”. It is a brilliant idea and the Sherman was adaptable enough to do it. But the biggest thing I think the firefly had going for it was timing tied with recognizing a problem, having parts to the solution, and making it work. Great stuff as always, bravo Zulu.
I think it's more an example of a solution looking for a problem. 75s were doing the job right up to the end of the war. American and French forces used 75mm tanks to massacre Panthers in their dozens at Arracourt and Colmar. Tigers were rarely encountered on the Western Front and when they were they were generally dealt with in short order whether there was a Firefly handy or not.
@@josephahner3031 The 75mm was NOT doing the job against the Big Cats The shells were NOT penetrating Page 64 Hart Sherman Firefly V Tiger 1944 They were Shermans of the Ist Northern Yoemanry
What gets overlooked in the enthusiasm over the Firefly is it wasnt a question of 'how do we make this Sherman better' rather: 'the 17 pounder is a proven match winner (arguably the most successful of the allied anti tank guns of the war).. how do we make it self propelled? In the desert the towed gun was so heavy it needed the Morris Quad gun tractor to not only tow it but to re position it. It required a crew of 7 to serve it. The German 88 was even more difficult to deploy and tow. In fact the 17lb was so large, once it was in place it was impossible to move it around the battlefield. Fine when defending but whe the allies went on the offensive it became a real issue. The British tried several chassis options before settling on the Sherman with a hole chopped in the turret. Later in the war the gun would also be mounted on the Comet 1 the A30 and in the Valentine as the Archer tank killer.
The archer is so fucking fun in War Thunder. People really don't take it seriously, especially at its BR, until they get deleted from across the map by something that can kill much bigger tanks through their front plates.
The Comet's 77 HV was not, strictly speaking a 17 pounder, it was a hybrid of the 17 pounder and 3 inch. It used the 17 pounder projectile on a necked down 3 inch shell case. The gun barrel was from the 17 pounder 9though shortened), but the breach was taken off the 3 inch. You lost a little of the penetration of the pure 17 pounder, but in return you got a smaller gun with a handier round that was easier to manipulate inside the turret. In essence you got the best of both worlds, almost as good performance as the 17 pounder but in a smaller, easier to install package.
@@FritzLeAngel And it worked. And even if it hadn't worked, the enemy was so scared of it that they spent previous time and ammo shooting at the most difficult target, as it was always hull down on a far away hill!
I don't think you can refer to the M4 Sherman as a failed design, it was the Model T Ford of WWII tanks, easy to build and relatively plentiful, it did some things well and many/most things very well? But the most effective later WWII versions were the M4A3E8 and the MkV Firefly, which is probably the best WWII version available? It's a bit like a flying P47 D Thunderbolt, strike power and survivability in combat zones!
It was a medium tank being used as a main battle tank but the strategy worked because of mass production and its high maneuverability and with upgrades sufficient gun. Early models used airplane engines with volatile airplane fuel so they went up in flames when penetrated coolking the crew but I think they eventually fixed that as well:
The Sherman was a great general purpose tank, but I always loved the M18 Hellcat.They should have made a heavier armored version of it, it had a low profile and a great gun. I think it could still maintain a good speed even with heavier armor, probably around 30 mph. And it just looks the part.
You should do a video on the SO-122, the Yugoslavian M4 with the 122, it has a weird lil history and was part of a whole programme to make a 'counter' of sorts to Russian tanks of the time (T-54) as this was before the death of Stalin and the re-kindling of Soviet-Yugoslav relations
I love Sherman tanks and I really appreciate the time effort and patience you put into this video. Thank you very much for making this.i learned alot.thanks for being a good source for learning about tanks and entertainment too.💯🙂
A great lash up in the best improvised style..and deadly for the big german cats as opportunity afforded. My favourite tank of the war, thanks for the great video 😊
not without changing the turret. there was a program that tried to fit a Schmalturm turret on a Panzer IV J to give it the L/70 cannon like a panther. However, this put too much stress on a chassi with a suspension that was already facing a lot of issues with being overloaded.
I think they tried to do something like that with the panzer III, however it didn’t end up working and instead resulted in the panzer III N with the short barreled 75 mil gun
@@rogueleader2230 That would be the panzer III K, which was a panzer III J with the Panzer IV F2 turret and shorter L/43 gun. and tl/dr, it didn't work
As shown with the above comments, not without changing the turret. The firefly was... a mess. Yes, it was a decent tank, but the turret was extremely cramped. Allow me to provide an example, in 1942 US army engineers designed a Sherman with a 76mm gun in the standard turret. The US army rejected it cause it was too cramped. The british were using the standard Sherman turret for those fireflies, and the 17 pounder is a bigger gun. Now if you look at the Sherman's with the 76mm gun, you'll notice that the turret is much different, that's cause one of the mad geniuses in development took a turret for the T-23 medium tank prototype, put a 76mm gun in it, and stuck it on a Sherman, and it worked perfectly.
The US M4 users told the Army they weren't interested in having their tanks upgunned to the 76mm due to being perfectly happy with the 75mm. They said it would take time to be properly trained in it's use and maintenance which would best to do at the training bases stateside and not in Europe where training would be rushed. The US Army had M4's with the 76 being delivered to England before D-Day but without their trained crews and mechanics so sat there after the invasion until they arrived. The British offered to produce some Fireflies for the US tankers before D-Day. The Army sent two experienced M4 crews to check those out. They reported back saying those were best avoided since US tankers would refuse to use them. The gunner had to contort himself to aim and fire the gun, the loader's task was equally awkward and the gun's breech would shoot out fire when used. They found that to be the most disturbing since the main gun rounds would occasionally separate when handled with the propellant spilling out onto the floor of the basket and fighting compartment. Their bow gunner/assistant driver took care of those spills by tossing water on the propellant then sweeping it up later. They were afraid that propellant would go where the thrown water wouldn't reach since there would be a lot more spilling out of the oversized cartridge. Chrysler began cobbling together the A57 multibank engine soon after starting production of the M3 since shortages of the R975 radial was expected. At that time they were installing rebuilt engines that were formerly used in commercial aircraft. It was widely used around the World until Pratt & Whitney introduced their Wasp radial engine that allowed aircraft to fly faster and carry heavier loads. The Army tried out the R975 in their combat car to shorten it's length and reduce weight. The tankers liked it so the Army decided to use it since there were warehouses full of the used engines. Chrysler also had warehouses full of their L6 engines that were used in their cars and trucks plus still had the tooling in place to make more. The US government got the British to accept using the A57 in their Lend-Lease tanks so US forces could stick with radials only. Chrysler worked the British tankers to make the A57 easier to remove for servicing. The Brits had their doubts the monster being reliable yet soon liked it since it would keep running even after two engine banks were knocked out. Back then the tank engines were expected to run for 200 hours before requiring rebuilding. The Brit tankers reported that many of their A57's could run for 1000 hours before starting to have serious problems.
Well I have SA Hart Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 and nowhere does it mention rounds separating . Dont forget the Brits had been using the 17 pounder as there main A/T gun with the RA .
My friend Jack Hawes was a firefly gunner with the Canadian Eighth Hussars (princess Louises). right until the end of WW2. He found the gun to be very effective
Afaik the sabot rounds were not affected by the muzzle brake but rather the higher velocity from the long barrel. Comet uses largely the same gun and ammo but in a shorter barrel and did not have the sabot accuracy issue.
There were more problems with the rounds such as aluminum buildup in the barrel but I encountered documents specifically talking about changes to the muzzle brake to help with the accuracy. I don't remember the exact problem it caused but I think it had something to do with the sabot separating. I'll probably cover it in a video of it's own someday
@@ConeOfArc the report was wrong.... It is well proven that the muzzle break was not the issue... It was as previously stated the sabot separation was inconsistent
The US eventually produced a similar design using the 76mm cannon and the T-23(I think that’s the number) turret with great success. It’s important to note however that the vast majority of the Armor encountered by all Allied forces were the much less armored Pz.III, Pz.IV and Stug variants. With the 75mm cannon being more than enough to punch through the armor of those vehicles usually punishing German armor force with judicious force. War thunder (as much as I have a problem with video game representations of tanks as a whole) does pretty will with this, with the M4 and M4A1 being more than a match for the Pz.IV F2, easily penetrating the front armor of the tank. Whenever an American unit did run into anything heavier it was an issue, but it was incredibly rare.
As for the US not deploying the 76mm Shermans, before D-day there were 150 M4A1(76) VVSS ready to issue for D-day operations. However US commanders decided it wasn’t necessary due to the fact no crews had been trained on the 76mm and No maintenance people had been trained on repair. However that attitude changed quickly so that when Operation Cobra started in Aug 44 - Patton’s 3rd Army had those M4A1(76) in action.
Alberta's contribution to WW2 includes both Lord Strathcona's Horse and the South Alberta Regiment (today perpetuated by the reserve South Alberta Light Horse) both of which used Fireflies (distributed one per troop of five tanks) so I've always been aware of and very fond of the Firefly. In the tabletop game "Gear Krieg" the Sherman Vc is one of the most effective tanks available and I have many happy memories of reducing German walkers to scrap metal from across the full length of the table. I *was* going to grumble about the video game shot of a dozen Fireflies all lined up together until you showed the photo of that! But it still puzzles me - I though the Ic and Vc tanks were never available in enough numbers to fill out entire troops or squadrons. Do you have any context for that photo?
I don’t remember the source, though I am fairly certain it was Bovington or TheChiefton. I had heard that the 75mm was preferred over the 76mm because of the better effect on bunkers, AT guns & intrenched infantry. Because of that it was preferred by the command structure of the tanks. Doctrine of the time called for TDs such as the M10 & M18 to destroy advancing armor.
I like the Firefly alot, but i can understand why the US didn't end up adopting it despite the amazing 17 pounder. By the time they were getting a good look at it, the 76mm high velocity Sherman and Hellcat were already in Europe, and the m26 was likely already being developed. And given the 76 could kill big cats just as well as the 17 pounder (at least within usual engagement distances), there was no point bringing another Sherman into the roster for the US. (Also, given how much ammo was stored in it, i imagine the Firefly had a problem with burn rates compared to the M4 with wet floor ammo stowage)
you are right the m26 was in development there were models of it already available, but those model were deemed not good enough by the armored core the people who were going to use them, the issue was poor reliability
The americans needed tanks able to fight and not toys made to make brits cheer :" we had the Firefly that could take out Tiger! Tiger Terror is still alive
@@michaelpielorz9283 that describes american tank doctrine in ww2 they needed reliable tanks as they could not by shipped back to the factory for reworks so easily due to the vast pacific and atlantic oceans separating the us from the places it's troops fought in
The 76mm was seen as disappointing against the big cats without the rare HVAP. The commanding generals of US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions reported this to Eisenhower in 1945. It was deemed not satisfactory.
I came across another video about the 75 shermans awhile back and from what I recall was mentioned, why the US kept operating it was kind of their doctrine of using tanks to support infantry and tank destroyers to target tanks, and while the 76 was good against armor, it was not as good as the 75 as an infantry support role, also allegedly the 75 sherman saw a lot of success on D day as a lot of the combat engagements were quite close and so the 75 could penetrate most german tanks at that range
@lazynow1 such as? I mean I have read a lot, and there are a lot of contradicting information online, like the Sherman swarm tactics, or how people say the T34 is reliable but in Reality broke down pretty often and had a wide range between its build quality. I mean I have not even touched soft features of the Sherman such as survivability, which led to more veteran crews surviving or how the soviets did not really heat treat the steel for their tanks
This is mostly just my thoughts but im pretty sure the Italians removed the vertical ammo in the front because it increased the brew up rate on the tanks, as for the extra guy they added back, best I could think of is an assistant driver situation like the hellcat.
I got a chance to drive a SHERMAN tank at Ft. Benning after returning from vietnam. 75mm gun. I drove a m-48 in vietnam and this was like operateing a very light weight and slow tank. 69th armor.
Great vid love the forged for battle episodes you do please pump out more of them. I think the Firefly was very smart thinking buy the Brits but even with some crew discomforts was the best way to address the German and Tiger tank problem than producing a whole new tank. Though in the game War Thunder I think they need to give the gun the better punch it deserves as I find it hard from the front to knock out Tiger and Panther tanks and even T34 tanks to a degree.
Angled armor, I use the archer often The 17pounder is magnificent but you have to realise the tiger had a 88mm gun the 17 pounder is good but it will struggle past tigers and things I usually don't have issues but I don't play much past 4.0 and I try aim for the mass and not the armour plates as with the solid shot the best damage I can do is shrapnel through the centre idk don't have much tips but it's still kinda inferior to the tigers armor etc, but these where some of the most heavily armoured tanks ever produced as well Just creep up beside them and shoot them above the tracks about 40% of the way from the front to rear They put there ammo there like fools and crew
@@danielspoon1234 Oh I've gotten some good hits on them its yeah being in the right place at the right time. Yeah in the Sherman it has no chance agianst the 88 or longer 75mm of the Panther tank. Its the T34 tanks that should be easier meat with the 17 pounder I think they are also a bit OP. On the British line I'm almost up to 4.0 others countries down at 2.0-3.0 so getting there.
This is from Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 by S.A. Hart Pg 14 and I quote" Firing armoured piercing rounds the gun could penetrate 172mm armour at 914m range ---sufficient to penetrate even the Tigers formidable gun-mantlet armour " end quote
Ok The Sherman IC(Hybrid) at 15:22...Was that specific one used as a frontline combat vehicle,or as the track hanger of the entire division..I see Sherman tracks,Churchill tracks..and are those that of a Valentine aswell?:D
Mmm... The US Army seems to consider depression to be a more important criterion than you give credit for. Perhaps British doctrine/design philosophy does not emphasise it, but if a tank had 'only' 8 degrees of depression as opposed to ten (such as T32 was found to have in testing), negative commentary resulted. Ten degrees seems to have been the mandatory minimum for the US Army from early WW2 through to today. And is the 'most deadly tank' the one with the gun which can kill more types of target, or the one which can kill more of the likely targets faster? Therein lies one of the philosophical differences of the two countries.
Definitely could have gone into both of those in more detail but better to cover them in their own videos I think as they're complex topics. Much of the criticism of tanks with limited gun depression I see from people seems to stem from the close range sorts of engagements most tank games feature which makes gun depression seem considerably more important than if it's a real world engagement
I am very very happy the AC-IV Thunderbolt was mentioned. the Sentinel line of tanks is one of Australia's best war-time achievements i think besides the current Austeyr bullpup our armed forces use now :)
Tank crews preferred the shorter 75mm because most engagements were against infantry, AT guns, and lightly skinned vehicles. As a result the primary round was high explosive.
@@ghdfhsfnfgbadfhsfh?? The biggest reason the US didn't have 76mm Shermans at D-Day was because the Crews didn't want them. Just because the 17pdr. had HE ammunition, doesn't mean the troops didn't still like the HE capability of the 75mm gun more. First of all, the 17pdr. has much larger shells in the same space as the 75mm. The 17 pdr.'s rate of fire is thus substantially lower than that of the 75mm M3. Secondly, the 17 pdr. had a smaller bursting charge when compared to the 75mm. Finally, the 75.. was loved for it's HE performance, to the point it get's favourably compared to the excellent American 105mm Howitzers. There is a reason the British had platoons of 4 75mm Shermans and 1 Firefly.
@@ghdfhsfnfgbadfhsfh 1) It _appears_ you think I said the 17 pounder didn't have HE. I know it did. But it had less explosive filler, was slower to fire and due to it's size, fewer rounds could be carried. Making it less useful. *_Which was the point of my comment._* 2) Your limited capacity to read, comprehend, communicate, and attempt to insult my intelligence, is your badge of shame, not mine.
@@harmdallmeyer6449not only didn't the crews want them, they felt like the 76s weren't necessary, cause 75s were killing tigers and panthers elsewhere.
@@harmdallmeyer6449 Not all the time by late 44 the Brits and Canadians were going to Cromwell tanks 3 /troop to one Firefly Source Tanks of the World David Miller Page 355
If i were to crack a guess as to why Italy added that 5 crewman back? Well, two theories 1 being they added him back to help send rounds up from the lower stores after the first six shots 2 being he was added back to help with maintenance, seeing how the fireflies did have increased wear on the suspension Or maybe both? Idk
Regarding the flash in the fighting compartment, it was alleged you could tell a Firefly crew by the lack of hair or eyebrows below the beret line. Concerning the action in which Wittmann was killed, Gunner Joe Ekins of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry dispatched 3 Tigers in that action, 1 of which may have been Wittmann. If it wasn’t Gunner Ekins, it was the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers. Unfortunately, their account is lost. There is an excellent video by Richard Smith,, stepping down as the Director of the Tank Museum at Bovington, describing the action and Gunner Ekins’ role. The video is called “VE Day: Ekins, Wittmann and the defeat of Germany”. Joe Ekins lived to a ripe old age and was well known at the museum, as was his comrade Ken Tout, author of some excellent books, who died last year. It was Ken Tout, as a historian of the conflict who identified Ekins as the man who likely killed Wittmann.
Since it is impossible for any tank shell to travel 1000 yards, change direction and enter an enemy tank from the other side it is not possible that Ekins fired the shot that killed Wittmann and his crew. Read Brian Reid's "No Holding Back, Operation Totalise Normandy August 1944" and the appendix he dedicated to this subject.
@@ToddSauve Ekins was a gunner in a Firefly. The 17pdr has an effective range of 0.93 miles, 1637yds or 1.5km, so the Tigers on the field that day were well within the range of any Canadian or British Fireflies on the field. Whoever was in those tanks that day, Ekins’ 3 Tigers and a MKIV later on is a feat of gunnery worthy of note. Reid went on to say "It should be emphasized that the truly important thing is that British and Canadian soldiers destroyed Five Tigers as well as a number of other AFV’s, this defeating the left wing of SS-Oberführer Kurt Meyer’s counterattack. The death of Wittmann was no more than an incidental result of the battle. It may be more than coincidence that this was the only area where the Phase 2 forces were able to make any substantial gains later this afternoon. One last point - and an important one - the accident of fate that saw Wittmann fell prey to a Sherbrooke Fusilier tank does not mean that 1 Northamptonshire Yeomanry and 144 Regiment RAC were in any way inferior to the Canadian unit in skill or training. It was a case of pure blind chance that the path Michael Wittmann chose led into the sights of a Canadian Sherman. Given the slightest of changes in circumstances, he could just as easily have fallen prey to British tank" Any of those tanks could have fallen prey to any Commonwealth Tank present that day. Unfortunately we don’t have the Sherbrooke’s account because their Headquarters truck was destroyed by a U.S. aircraft… None of the Commonwealth tankers that day knew Wittmann was there, or even who he was. Wittmann was pretty much a product of Nazi propaganda and his exploits are possibly more dubious than the circumstances of his death. Many ‘Tank Aces’ accrued fantastical ‘scores’ on the Eastern Front for circumstances specific to that time and place. Allied tankers always worked as teams and it’s rare, for example for anything to be attributed to someone like Ekins. Of Villers Bocage , John Buckley said "many historians through to today continue to repackage unquestioningly Nazi propaganda". Otto Carius for example allegedly got quite upset about the idea of ‘aces’ and ‘kills’. When it was believed that Ekin’s indisputably dealt with Wittmann he said “He accepted the doctrines of Hitler enough to get in his tank and invade other peoples' countries. Country after country. To kill men, women and children. He might have been a hero to the Germans, but not to me.”
@@callumgordon1668 I agree 100% Callum! Way too much has been made of this fanatical Nazi party and SS member Michael Wittmann. He deserves to be forgotten.
This is from Firefly V Tiger by S A Hart page 62 Eakers was at around 800m The Canadian Fireflies of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers were at 1100m and the RAC on Hill 122 were at 1300m it is probable that Eakers round was the one that got Wittmann That day Eakers got 3 tigers in 12 minutes firing 5 shots
@@jacktattis Read Brian Reid's book listed above. Then do a TH-cam search for a documentary about the "Black Baron" from Norm Christie. It proves Ekins was over 1000 yards from Wittmann's Tiger while the Canadians were less than 500 FEET! There is a lot of sloppy research and lies out there done by fanboys who say what they want to, not the provable facts.
My personal guess is the 5 crew man was put in so it would be easier to drive and navigate. While yes to commander should do that tell the commander in a heavy firefight in a city OR on a mountain side road to get out and see where the hell to go without getting the entire crew killed. The 5th crew member could also possibly assist with loading the non ready rack shells.
As I think to remember, tank Commander, "Oddball" claims in the film: "Kellys Heroes", that the only way a Sherman may delay a Tiger, is by letting it shoot holes in it! 😁
A very important factor regarding the 75 shermans in normandy and europe in general. While the short 75s did struggle against the big cats, keep in mind there werent a whole lot of them overall. Many were in the eastern front. And when most of what youre fighting is enemy troops, bunkers, enemy encampments, and light/medium tanks with 50-80 mm of armor overall, the short 75 was perfectly acceptable. Everyone likes to focus on the tigers and panthers but most of what wouldve been encountered would be panzer 3, 4, stugs, and other older light tanks or SPGs. Which the sherman was very capable against. Tank on tank battles only occurred about 15% of the time if i recall. The rest was basically troop support, breakthroughs, travel, etc.
In Normandy there were 654 Panthers and 138 Tigers, plus 26 Jagdpanthers so overall over 800 big cats. The overwhelming majority on the British /Canadian sector. That's a fair amount, and around 1/3 of all German armour deployed there (2,336). Source. Zetterling, Normandy 1944.
@@lyndoncmp5751 huh, I was always told the majority were deployed to the eastern front. I mean regardless, less than 1000 big cats vs...lets say 10k to 20k Sherman's out of the almost 50k made is a big difference. I kinda made up those numbers but there were a lot of Sherman's in Europe at the least.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Now compare that number of 800 to the number of towed ATGs, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks and every other type of threat present. Take also into consideration that engagement distances (read "line of sight") was rarely more than a (very) few hundred meters, where the basic 75 was also mostly good enough even at the tougher armor.
Maybe the extra crewmember on the Italian one is to help the Loader, being able to get ammo up from lower in the hull to cut down on time spent loading when the ready rack's empty? Maybe they figured that having the gun be able to fire faster and more consistently was more beneficial than the whole ammo count?
Hey I know this will probably be harder for you to research, but could you do a video on the Turan or Toldi tanks? I think Hungarian armor, while not playing a massive role in the war is an interesting look into tank design done by smaller countries.
So many pluses that the Sherman had in original form. So adaptable ( See Hobart’s funny’s ) To face the Tiger and Panther, and the excellent ye olde Mk IV, the seventeen pounder Firefly, was a war time improvisation that was very creditable.
"The Tank the Tiger Respected, the Sherman Firefly" might be a better title for the video...The only thing that scared the German tank crews were the Allied planes. No offense
Help support my channel by buying the newest merch design now available here: gunjigraphics.com/product-category/coneofarc/
gotta say the firefly merch is cute af
it's a 17 ouncer not pounder cone, stop flattering yourself XD
My dad recently published a book about the Sentinel that also goes over, in detail, the recoil fix the aussies developed for the 17 pounder, would make another great addition to your information sources as his book takes most if not all the scattered information regarding the sentinel and puts it into one neat package.
The book is called "The Australian Cruiser Tank" by Jason Belgrave
I can't believe you actually did it!! This is awesome!
Digging the intro 👍
Was unaware that the Australians had managed to get a 17 pounder into a Sentinel before Canada and Britain did it in the Sherman. Impressive.
The Sentinel going from a comically small gun to a comically large gun is very funny to me.
Tfw they stuck dual 25 pounders into a sentinel beforehand to simulate the recoil of the 17 pounder.
@@PoisoningShadow671 Yeah, it's pretty hilarious that that's the reason for the double-barrel 25-pdr. BUt really, it makes perfect sense. The Aussies were designing a 17-pdr upgrade to the Sentinel well before they actually *had* any 17-pdrs delivered to them, so double 25-pdrs was easily the best way to test how it'd handle the recoil.
It's kind of too bad that the Sentinels never got used outside of training, because they were clearly a better tank than they had any business being coming from a nation that had never made a tank before. In no way a perfect design, but how many other tank designers could accomplish so much with so little?
Give an Australian enough, time, rum, and fencing wire and he'll accomplish just about anything.
AC IV 17-pdr Armed Sentinel Cruiser Tank.
Their is 1 prototype that never saw combat though an interesting odd achievement by the Aussies few know about.
Austrian AC3 Thunderbolt saw one production with roughly 150 of 200 orders cancelled in 1943 though why seems more like internal military Bureaucracy
Austrian AC3 Thunderbolt didn't see combat though they tried to get it in combat
AC IB of the sentinel had a QF 6-pounder gun more then ample to take on anything the Japanese had in the pacific, south east Asia & Oceania.
AC IB housed a British QF 25 pounder gun & a few did see combat unlike the two types of 17pounder sentinels that had various complications.
It is impressive mind that Australia comparable tank to the USA mind it did house 3 USA Cadillac V8 engines as Australia didn't have any real automotive industry today or let alone back in ww2.
Australia frankly built a superior tank to anything Italy & japan had yet is considered a minor power in ww2 unlike the 2 mentioned Axis nations.
Mind Australia only built some 65 tanks as how many tanks do you need being such an isolated continent?
Australia had to prioritise naval construction & aircraft over tanks.
A major but often overlooked factor in why the US never adopted the Firefly during the war was simply because they didn't want the complications to supply lines that would have been caused by the ammo- they'd either have to rely on the UK for Firefly ammo or take the time to retool an existing factory to produce it. The decision was made that the American 76 mm guns that were starting to be put onto Shermans were, while not quite as good as the 17 pounder, still sufficient.
There were certainly legitimate reasons why the US didn't adopt the gun but at the same time much of it was likely due to national pride. The US wanted to use their own guns in their own tanks.
@@ConeOfArc I'd say the abundance of practical limitations are the bigger reason than national pride. The American 76 fit better in the Sherman's redesigned turret (far fewer ergonomics issues + maintains the stabilizer), 76s were already being made, ammo already in stockpiles, and no need to heft enormous 17pdr shells inside a tank not designed to carry such a huge gun.
@@ConeOfArcI think I have to disagree. In Addition to the other reasons mentioned, why would the Americans suddenly be too proud to use a British gun, when they had done exactly that prior with the 57mm M1.
On the contrary, tests had found that the 76mm did better than the 17 pounder for one major reason, long range accuracy.
The 17 pounders best AP ammunition was the Sabot round, which at this time was wildly inaccurate after 500 yards.
@@ConeOfArcthat's actually more a myth than anything.
The Chieftain covered it in his myths on the Sherman video.
Even from your thumbnail, the brits did pretty damn well on making the firefly look equipped with the short barrel.
It is impressive how a small amount of paint can work so well for camo
I mean back in the day camera and infrared aren't as effective as today but yeah, it's pretty impressive
@@cringe_lord5762What do you mean Infra red?
@@cringe_lord5762while Infra red camera technology was experimented with it never reached tanks so what are you going on about???
@@TakenWithoutsome panthers had infared scopes but they had problem low range making it not that good.
The firefly is also depicted in Enlisted and is very fun to sit back and snipe every german tank from far away
Hello fellow enlisted player☺️
Because Enlisted uses War Thunder as an asset base and vice versa.
@@FirstDagger i already know that
I'd play Enlisted but my computer is too much of a potato to handle it without going at like two frames per second
It's not that good in enlisted against tigers or panthers
Soldier: Sir! The gun won't fit!
Churchill: Put it sideways!
Soldier: The radio won't fit!
Churchill: Cut a hole and have it stick out the back!
Soldier: The engine's not good!
CHADhill: *GET 5 CAR ENGINES AND PUT IT TOGETHER!*
I love that meme
Haha same
Love potential history
Interestingly not very accurate, at least for Instance the 5 engines was an American idea but rarely used by them, the gun technically was not in sideways but close, the most accurate part is the radio being put in a box on the outside of the turret. But never less. It is still a funny meme.
Eh he wasn’t a chad
I was fortunate enough to meet some Canadian WW2 tankers.
Flashback is how she earned her nickname.
Don't mess with Canadian troops, that's something Germany certainly came to learn in both world wars....
Why did your Thumbnail sometimes look like something from Paleoartist or Speculative evolution
What does that mean?
@@user-op8fg3ny3jDinosaur drawing
Speculative tank evolution needs to be a new topic
@@lscfisn't that just scifi tanks?
Can confirm it looks like a paleoart
If you ever feel useless just remember the Italian Firefly has a 5th crewman.
Was there room for him????
In War Thunder at least it's slightly helpful to have him to replace a useful crewmember and keep you in the fight longer. As for real life I'd assume the driver is happy to have an assistant when his arms get tired.
But who would take care of the radio and the map if he wasn't there.
@@Omniknightish the commander would - the British Army tended to place the radio with the commander in the turret
Someone has to prepare all the pasta, right?
It's crazy to think all the redesign was done on paper with a pencil, a ruler and not much else. No CAD, no renders, no anything. Amazing!
Like how most things where and still are built
@@danielspoon1234 You said it for as an Engineer till my failed health I use draughtmen board & not CAD.
You only use CAD to impress the lament, investors or hand out copies to those that pencil marks confuse on the work floor.
Most great designs were 1st scribbled out roughly on the back of cigarette packet, bog roll or similar for when an idea comes best to get it on paper handy unless your like myself with good mental retention that can render objects in my minds eye just like my father that is an engineer-former royal marine engineer.
Engineers number less then 15 million globally & they keep everything operating.
We have a massive shortage of personal & most of us have retired or quiet as engineers are over worked with no pay to reflect nor unwanted thanks for our efforts.
My father sees o reason to work living of his patents & myself I can make anything I want as I'm not having a diversity hire or lefty ponce claim my works as theirs.
Few to no indentions or works were a team effort but 1 mind & those that say other wise are full of cobblers looking for stealing the laurels of another!
Im 26 I build retaining walls I'm currently working on building my second timber boat
It's all in my head, I like 3d software but I have no experience using it I usually just scribble down frame and hull designs and shapes and make them up in my head as I produce it
I don't want to sound condescending with my initial comment but this new world is only new and people have been making things appear out of there heads since before the cave paintings where around I'm sure of it
Some them old tanks where just plates that layed together then got welded very simple yet very well thought out wish I knew more carpentry and joinery as that's where I struggle building my boats, we don't make joins in masonry so I gotta think a bit lok
The SR 71 was designed using slide rules and pencils.
My dad was a tank driver during the war. He trained on the CDL tanks with the 49th RTR at Lowther Castle. He was transferred to the 4/7th RDG just after Arnhem, driving Fireflies. He said the Multibank was an OK engine, but they had to crank it about 100 times to get the oil round when first starting if l remember correctly?. The 17pdr made a helluva bang when fired.... like the Crack Of Doom, someone once said ! I. He could attest to that, as he had severely damaged hearing in his right ear for the rest of his life after his time in Fireflies. The 4/7th did have great success with the 17pdr when Sgt Harris and his gunner Tpr Mckillop knocked out 5 Panther's in quick succession during the battle at Lingevres during the Normandy campaign. The Firefly is much maligned in some quarter's, but it was basically only ever a stop gap measure, that came along at just the right time, that is, when it really counted. It was a very potent weapon mounted on the tried and tested Sherman and proved to be very effective against the heavy German armour right to the end of the war.
Is there no evidence of the Firefly getting it's name from the Flashback caused by the gun? I feel like that's a more plausible reason for it, because the cabin would effectively fill with little embers as the powder burns off in the air.
First thing I thought when the flashback was mentioned. Definitely seems the more fitting reason the crew would refer to it as a firefly
Oooh I like that hypothesis
False. The flashback is the reason. Someone else mentioned it in the comments. And they were told by tankers that operated it
For a non-tanker, you dismiss gun depression pretty blithely. As a former Abrams commander, one of the greatest strengths of that tank is the ability to work a reverse slope, or even small depression in the ground, using berm drills.
It's certainly an advantage but it's a very over exaggerated feature of vehicles in my opinion. This seems to stem from gaming where good depression makes a vehicle better on Ridgelines or hulldown positions. Obviously this does translate to the real world as well but not to the same extent as the closer ranges of video game tank engagements
@@ConeOfArc I heard somewhere that Israeli Centurions used that feature in the 6 day war
@@g8ymwFrom the terrifying 17-pounder, to the likes of the 20-pounder, to the L7A1, Centurion go Brrrrrr.
My grandmother worked on the Sherman’s in Oshawa Canada. In the latter half of the war, Fireflies were produced right at the factory.
one of my fathers friends was a Canadian Tanker and fought in Italy. his name was Elwood Martin, his son was my chemistry teacher in HS.
he rarely ever spoke about what happened to him during the war.
I am chilean, it's interesting you mentioned our variant. It was modernized and used until the inception of the leopard, really a long useful life. Good video 👍
south american snake
Viva Chile CTM!!! 🇨🇱
I love the firefly, such a beautiful name for such a beautiful sherman
I love that wavy barrel camo, it so simple but effect.
The shortcoming of the 75mm wasn't an inability to engage German armor, it was its inability to engage German armor at range. I think the "magic number" was 1km, if I remember right.
@lazynow1 Yes, they kept upgrading the gun because it wouldn't penetrate concrete in support of infantry? The 17lb-er wasn't implemented because the 75 (or short 105!!!) wasn't good against emplacements. But because they were mediocre to bad against armor.
I'm old enough I've not only read books (almost all of which the "experts" said the M4 was a dogshit platform), but I've had the chance to actually talk to WWII Vets.
US Armor doctrine changed a LOT over the course of the war, particularly when the 3rd Army pushed Berlin. And after the war? Dedicated Tank Destroyers went the way of the dinosaur. For good reason.
The 75 and 105 could take out the Big Cats from a distance by shooting low at their road wheels and tracks. Those were vulnerable to AP and HE. The 105 also had HEAT rounds to use against armor and bunkers. The US M4 users liked the short barrel 75 and 105 since those allowed 360 degree turret transverse in close confines and forests.
@@MrAcuta73Sure, because most of those dogshit books based themselves on the dog shit "expert" (i.e Charlatan) Belton Cooper.
@@MrAcuta73Thankfully you talked to the veterans who would've told you the M4 was an excellent platform and you've probably been able to read enough now to know it was the best medium of the war
@@MrAcuta73... And the M3 75mm was more than capable of knocking out Panzer 4s at range since the Panzer 4 was an inferior platform with only 80mm of armor
thank you and all of your associates for keeping history alive
The multi bank was a great engine, like anything it had some teething issues but once figures out it was onenof the most reliable engines in a sherman. It had a large amount of ready parts beinging a mass produced engine and most mechanics already knew how to work on it besides the new crankshaft and housing.
I believe that us Brits and the Commonwealth forces had no real problems with it, and it was a nice smooth understressed unit.
The Multibank was hilariously reliable gm sent a specialist tech for ever 10 or so shipped and the reports where that the engines were "more reliable than expected"
😊last good chrysler product made.
@@Simon_NonymousSimon u had a problem getting to Arnhem on time. Sorry, no offense meant. That was terrible of me to say. You should have thrown a Canadian Tanker group up that road first. The UK had no problem throwing a lot of us in first at Dieppe and other tough situations. Of course it was Monty more than you kind sir. Neither one of us made any WW2 decisions.
@@mdkell4261 I was commenting on the engine of a tank.
The 17 Pounder had one thing that made it less desirable for the US as an tank mounted gun. Due to its high velocity the HE shells had to have much thicker walls to survive firing and so carried less explosive filler, even less than the same bore diameter US 76mm shells. The majority of of targets that tanks fought were soft targets like infantry and AT guns so they liked having a good HE shell. This was one reason US commanders resisted getting the 76mm armed Shermans so it wasn’t likely the 17 Pounder would be adopted.
The 17 Pounder also had a problem during the war in that its APDS shell which had a very high penetration was rather inaccurate. I’ve read the reason for this was the high velocity combined with the alloy used for the sabot meant it would slightly melt and stop it from breaking away from the penetrator cleanly. The Canadians developed a different design called a “pot sabot” that helped with this. And the 77mm GF gun the Comet had used the same projectiles as the 17 Pounder but had a slightly smaller propellant charge which also solved the problem.
Note the Americans HE round for the 76mm had that problem.
We got around it by (amongst other things) reducing the propellant charge which, although not quite as big a bang as the 75mm, was way better than the 76mm.
The German heavy armour was largely decimated before the Americans had to face it.
As for the APDS round, we hadn't learned, at that stage, that you cannot use a muzzle brake with that.
The rest of the time, the 17 pounder was more than accurate enough
1. Highly inaccurate???? Stephen A Hart " Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 " Page 64 and I quote "Sgt Finneys Firefly Tank No4 'Orenburg' ----spotted two Panzer IVs moving to the west side of the main road at the prodigious range of 1645m In a brilliant piece of shooting gunner fired two shots and brewed up both Panzers " end quote
2. Page 23 of the same book. Firefly Ammunition AP. / APC / APCBC / APDS /HE So the Firefly did have HE and that was NOT the reason the US did not want It was logistics it saved carrying foreign ammunition and the US reluctance to use British Equipment
The comet also had a much shorter barrel, thus reducing velocity
@@hughsmith2657 True
@@hughsmith2657 This is from Tanks of the World by David Miller and I quote inter alia " but it was still far ahead of any gun carried on Allied AFVs at that time" end quote
I love how they guy who designed it was named killmore (defenitly spelled differently probably kilmoar) and the design in fact helped it kill more
that`s just crazy man but I found it on my ship
Even the Abrams gets flarebacks with a dirty breech. They're almost impossible to entirely remove as an issue.
My grandfather joined REME on the day it was formed and was sent to Guards Armoured Division. His job was to service Sherman Fireflies during training (pre D Day). He called himself the Dreamy REME because there was so little work to do, I guess that once they'd sorted the engines and guns they looked after themselves.
He was a London taxi owner driver before the war so maybe the Chrysler engines weren't too big a mystery for him.
He did not go overseas and remained with the Guards Armoured Division training new crews.
I saw the Firefly at Bovington a week ago, when I told my story to the veteran curator at the door he led me straight to the tank, he said my story was worth getting off his seat for.... many thanks.
When I saw the Guards Armoured Division tank that my grandfather may have know, may have worked on, it was an emotional moment, the curator said that veterans and relatives often felt that way with vehicles they had connections to.
The Sherman Firefly looks modern ever against much newer Russian tanks in the Bovington collection.
Thanks for an informative documentary.
Man, I loved those missions in COD 3 where you play as a Polish exile crew manning a Sherman Firefly. The Mace had me stressing so hard as a kid.
The Chilean M60 Sherman was amazing, it was great to see them in parades alongside Leo 1s.
The 1977 war movie, “A Bridge Too Far” has many Sherman Fireflies in action. It’s the largest gathering of Fireflies in one movie! Many of them were revived to operational status from museums!
Great movie
Fun fact, the first King Tiger to be taken out by a tank is credited to a Firefly.
And the first Firefly was likely taken out by a PzIV. Besides having a certainly great gun the Firefly was vulnerable to pretty much every German tank from quite a long range.
@wanderschlosser1857 Actually, firefly losses were relatively low since they were deployed almost like tank destroyers. Also its more impressive when a relatively smaller tank is able to destroy a much bigger, overhyped, tank.
@@wanderschlosser1857Why does your name just scream "I think German tanks are the best-est-est of all time" to me?
@@airplanemaniacgaming7877 Don't know, probably because you interpret this into it? I didn't write anything like it. I just wanted to point out that Firefly's are commonly described as Tiger-killing super tanks completely ignoring that they still were Shermans after all. It was a stop gap to make the very capable 17 pounder mobile until a new designed tank was available. The Achilles was a similar attempt and it took until the Comet that the gun got a suitable carriage. Nonetheless was the Firefly a very dangerous opponent when correctly deployed as Wittmann and many others found out.
@@wanderschlosser1857The Sherman was not vulnerable to "pretty much every German tank from qUiTe a lOnG rAnGe" you fuckin werhraboo loser.
Great job on my favorite ww2 tank, I think the firefly was a lesson in “good enough now” instead of “perfect but too late”. It is a brilliant idea and the Sherman was adaptable enough to do it. But the biggest thing I think the firefly had going for it was timing tied with recognizing a problem, having parts to the solution, and making it work. Great stuff as always, bravo Zulu.
I think it's more an example of a solution looking for a problem. 75s were doing the job right up to the end of the war. American and French forces used 75mm tanks to massacre Panthers in their dozens at Arracourt and Colmar. Tigers were rarely encountered on the Western Front and when they were they were generally dealt with in short order whether there was a Firefly handy or not.
@@josephahner3031 The 75mm was NOT doing the job against the Big Cats The shells were NOT penetrating Page 64 Hart Sherman Firefly V Tiger 1944 They were Shermans of the Ist Northern Yoemanry
@@josephahner3031 No the 75mm was not a good A/T gun The US never had any Tigers to face
What gets overlooked in the enthusiasm over the Firefly is it wasnt a question of 'how do we make this Sherman better' rather: 'the 17 pounder is a proven match winner (arguably the most successful of the allied anti tank guns of the war).. how do we make it self propelled?
In the desert the towed gun was so heavy it needed the Morris Quad gun tractor to not only tow it but to re position it. It required a crew of 7 to serve it. The German 88 was even more difficult to deploy and tow. In fact the 17lb was so large, once it was in place it was impossible to move it around the battlefield. Fine when defending but whe the allies went on the offensive it became a real issue. The British tried several chassis options before settling on the Sherman with a hole chopped in the turret. Later in the war the gun would also be mounted on the Comet 1 the A30 and in the Valentine as the Archer tank killer.
The archer is so fucking fun in War Thunder.
People really don't take it seriously, especially at its BR, until they get deleted from across the map by something that can kill much bigger tanks through their front plates.
The Comet's 77 HV was not, strictly speaking a 17 pounder, it was a hybrid of the 17 pounder and 3 inch.
It used the 17 pounder projectile on a necked down 3 inch shell case. The gun barrel was from the 17 pounder 9though shortened), but the breach was taken off the 3 inch.
You lost a little of the penetration of the pure 17 pounder, but in return you got a smaller gun with a handier round that was easier to manipulate inside the turret.
In essence you got the best of both worlds, almost as good performance as the 17 pounder but in a smaller, easier to install package.
Didn't know the Firefly Grizzly I would pass by at CFB Borden was one of a kind. Cool to know!
In my opinion the firefly did have some issues but it was pretty powerful for its time
It's so gloriously flawed though! 😂
@@MostlyPennyCatif it works and kills
Its a tank
@@FritzLeAngel
And it worked.
And even if it hadn't worked, the enemy was so scared of it that they spent previous time and ammo shooting at the most difficult target, as it was always hull down on a far away hill!
Definitely the best anti tank gun fitted to any Western Allied tank.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Yes indeed
I don't think you can refer to the M4 Sherman as a failed design, it was the Model T Ford of WWII tanks, easy to build and relatively plentiful, it did some things well and many/most things very well? But the most effective later WWII versions were the M4A3E8 and the MkV Firefly, which is probably the best WWII version available?
It's a bit like a flying P47 D Thunderbolt, strike power and survivability in combat zones!
It was a medium tank being used as a main battle tank but the strategy worked because of mass production and its high maneuverability and with upgrades sufficient gun. Early models used airplane engines with volatile airplane fuel so they went up in flames when penetrated coolking the crew but I think they eventually fixed that as well:
The Sherman was a great general purpose tank, but I always loved the M18 Hellcat.They should have made a heavier armored version of it, it had a low profile and a great gun.
I think it could still maintain a good speed even with heavier armor, probably around 30 mph. And it just looks the part.
You should do a video on the SO-122, the Yugoslavian M4 with the 122, it has a weird lil history and was part of a whole programme to make a 'counter' of sorts to Russian tanks of the time (T-54) as this was before the death of Stalin and the re-kindling of Soviet-Yugoslav relations
Such a mad vehicle. Wonderously, gloriously mad, but mad all the same.
Its not even out yet but i still can drop a like, love these videos thank you for your work!
how the heck did you comment before it was released
@@freaky1382 M A G I C
At the end about war thunder i was like "YES IVE BEEN WONDERING THAT FOR AGES"
Based creator, respects other sources and wants the viewer to learn
my dad told me his crew smashed everything with this brilliant Sherman, they cut through German armour like butter
The firefly is one of my 3 favorite tanks of WWII and one of my top 5 favorite vehicles of the war.
I love Sherman tanks and I really appreciate the time effort and patience you put into this video. Thank you very much for making this.i learned alot.thanks for being a good source for learning about tanks and entertainment too.💯🙂
A great lash up in the best improvised style..and deadly for the big german cats as opportunity afforded.
My favourite tank of the war, thanks for the great video 😊
Question: was it possible for the German tanks to do something similar to panzer 4 tanks and the 75 mm KwK 44 or even the 88 mm?
The German autism wouldn't allow it 😂
not without changing the turret. there was a program that tried to fit a Schmalturm turret on a Panzer IV J to give it the L/70 cannon like a panther. However, this put too much stress on a chassi with a suspension that was already facing a lot of issues with being overloaded.
I think they tried to do something like that with the panzer III, however it didn’t end up working and instead resulted in the panzer III N with the short barreled 75 mil gun
@@rogueleader2230 That would be the panzer III K, which was a panzer III J with the Panzer IV F2 turret and shorter L/43 gun. and tl/dr, it didn't work
As shown with the above comments, not without changing the turret.
The firefly was... a mess.
Yes, it was a decent tank, but the turret was extremely cramped.
Allow me to provide an example, in 1942 US army engineers designed a Sherman with a 76mm gun in the standard turret. The US army rejected it cause it was too cramped.
The british were using the standard Sherman turret for those fireflies, and the 17 pounder is a bigger gun.
Now if you look at the Sherman's with the 76mm gun, you'll notice that the turret is much different, that's cause one of the mad geniuses in development took a turret for the T-23 medium tank prototype, put a 76mm gun in it, and stuck it on a Sherman, and it worked perfectly.
Okay, I finally knew where the "VC" designations for these tanks come from... Thank you sir
The US M4 users told the Army they weren't interested in having their tanks upgunned to the 76mm due to being perfectly happy with the 75mm. They said it would take time to be properly trained in it's use and maintenance which would best to do at the training bases stateside and not in Europe where training would be rushed. The US Army had M4's with the 76 being delivered to England before D-Day but without their trained crews and mechanics so sat there after the invasion until they arrived.
The British offered to produce some Fireflies for the US tankers before D-Day. The Army sent two experienced M4 crews to check those out. They reported back saying those were best avoided since US tankers would refuse to use them. The gunner had to contort himself to aim and fire the gun, the loader's task was equally awkward and the gun's breech would shoot out fire when used. They found that to be the most disturbing since the main gun rounds would occasionally separate when handled with the propellant spilling out onto the floor of the basket and fighting compartment. Their bow gunner/assistant driver took care of those spills by tossing water on the propellant then sweeping it up later. They were afraid that propellant would go where the thrown water wouldn't reach since there would be a lot more spilling out of the oversized cartridge.
Chrysler began cobbling together the A57 multibank engine soon after starting production of the M3 since shortages of the R975 radial was expected. At that time they were installing rebuilt engines that were formerly used in commercial aircraft. It was widely used around the World until Pratt & Whitney introduced their Wasp radial engine that allowed aircraft to fly faster and carry heavier loads. The Army tried out the R975 in their combat car to shorten it's length and reduce weight. The tankers liked it so the Army decided to use it since there were warehouses full of the used engines. Chrysler also had warehouses full of their L6 engines that were used in their cars and trucks plus still had the tooling in place to make more. The US government got the British to accept using the A57 in their Lend-Lease tanks so US forces could stick with radials only. Chrysler worked the British tankers to make the A57 easier to remove for servicing. The Brits had their doubts the monster being reliable yet soon liked it since it would keep running even after two engine banks were knocked out. Back then the tank engines were expected to run for 200 hours before requiring rebuilding. The Brit tankers reported that many of their A57's could run for 1000 hours before starting to have serious problems.
Well I have SA Hart Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 and nowhere does it mention rounds separating . Dont forget the Brits had been using the 17 pounder as there main A/T gun with the RA .
My friend Jack Hawes was a firefly gunner with the Canadian Eighth Hussars (princess Louises). right until the end of WW2. He found the gun to be very effective
You finally covered my favourite tank of all time, great video
*THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR CRAFTING THESE LOVELY VIDEOS!!* 🙂
I have a book written by James Holland, which has some superb illustrations of the internals of the sherman firefly.
This would of been on discovery channel it’s incredible how far this is I’m going to look back fondly on this when I’m older
Afaik the sabot rounds were not affected by the muzzle brake but rather the higher velocity from the long barrel. Comet uses largely the same gun and ammo but in a shorter barrel and did not have the sabot accuracy issue.
There were more problems with the rounds such as aluminum buildup in the barrel but I encountered documents specifically talking about changes to the muzzle brake to help with the accuracy. I don't remember the exact problem it caused but I think it had something to do with the sabot separating. I'll probably cover it in a video of it's own someday
@@ConeOfArc the report was wrong.... It is well proven that the muzzle break was not the issue... It was as previously stated the sabot separation was inconsistent
@@nigelsmith7366 Well that is funny No where in my book does it say the APDS round was inaccurate
The US eventually produced a similar design using the 76mm cannon and the T-23(I think that’s the number) turret with great success. It’s important to note however that the vast majority of the Armor encountered by all Allied forces were the much less armored Pz.III, Pz.IV and Stug variants. With the 75mm cannon being more than enough to punch through the armor of those vehicles usually punishing German armor force with judicious force. War thunder (as much as I have a problem with video game representations of tanks as a whole) does pretty will with this, with the M4 and M4A1 being more than a match for the Pz.IV F2, easily penetrating the front armor of the tank. Whenever an American unit did run into anything heavier it was an issue, but it was incredibly rare.
Also the 1c was a hybrid Hull.... Cast late type Hull front with welded late type Hull rear... The cut line was through the front hatches
As for the US not deploying the 76mm Shermans, before D-day there were 150 M4A1(76) VVSS ready to issue for D-day operations. However US commanders decided it wasn’t necessary due to the fact no crews had been trained on the 76mm and No maintenance people had been trained on repair. However that attitude changed quickly so that when Operation Cobra started in Aug 44 - Patton’s 3rd Army had those M4A1(76) in action.
Alberta's contribution to WW2 includes both Lord Strathcona's Horse and the South Alberta Regiment (today perpetuated by the reserve South Alberta Light Horse) both of which used Fireflies (distributed one per troop of five tanks) so I've always been aware of and very fond of the Firefly. In the tabletop game "Gear Krieg" the Sherman Vc is one of the most effective tanks available and I have many happy memories of reducing German walkers to scrap metal from across the full length of the table.
I *was* going to grumble about the video game shot of a dozen Fireflies all lined up together until you showed the photo of that! But it still puzzles me - I though the Ic and Vc tanks were never available in enough numbers to fill out entire troops or squadrons. Do you have any context for that photo?
The firefly,also had great speed as well! The 17 pound gun added! Was pure genius🫡
*17 Pounder.
Excellent video!! Thanks for doing all the research!
I don’t remember the source, though I am fairly certain it was Bovington or TheChiefton. I had heard that the 75mm was preferred over the 76mm because of the better effect on bunkers, AT guns & intrenched infantry. Because of that it was preferred by the command structure of the tanks. Doctrine of the time called for TDs such as the M10 & M18 to destroy advancing armor.
I like the Firefly alot, but i can understand why the US didn't end up adopting it despite the amazing 17 pounder.
By the time they were getting a good look at it, the 76mm high velocity Sherman and Hellcat were already in Europe, and the m26 was likely already being developed. And given the 76 could kill big cats just as well as the 17 pounder (at least within usual engagement distances), there was no point bringing another Sherman into the roster for the US. (Also, given how much ammo was stored in it, i imagine the Firefly had a problem with burn rates compared to the M4 with wet floor ammo stowage)
you are right the m26 was in development there were models of it already available, but those model were deemed not good enough by the armored core the people who were going to use them, the issue was poor reliability
The americans needed tanks able to fight and not toys made to make brits cheer :" we had the Firefly that could take out Tiger! Tiger Terror is still alive
@@michaelpielorz9283 that describes american tank doctrine in ww2 they needed reliable tanks as they could not by shipped back to the factory for reworks so easily due to the vast pacific and atlantic oceans separating the us from the places it's troops fought in
The 76mm was seen as disappointing against the big cats without the rare HVAP. The commanding generals of US 2nd and 6th Armored Divisions reported this to Eisenhower in 1945. It was deemed not satisfactory.
The17Pdr was knocking off PzIVs at 1600m+ and Tigers at over 800+ metres It was the best in Theatre
I came across another video about the 75 shermans awhile back and from what I recall was mentioned, why the US kept operating it was kind of their doctrine of using tanks to support infantry and tank destroyers to target tanks, and while the 76 was good against armor, it was not as good as the 75 as an infantry support role, also allegedly the 75 sherman saw a lot of success on D day as a lot of the combat engagements were quite close and so the 75 could penetrate most german tanks at that range
@lazynow1 such as? I mean I have read a lot, and there are a lot of contradicting information online, like the Sherman swarm tactics, or how people say the T34 is reliable but in Reality broke down pretty often and had a wide range between its build quality. I mean I have not even touched soft features of the Sherman such as survivability, which led to more veteran crews surviving or how the soviets did not really heat treat the steel for their tanks
This is mostly just my thoughts but im pretty sure the Italians removed the vertical ammo in the front because it increased the brew up rate on the tanks, as for the extra guy they added back, best I could think of is an assistant driver situation like the hellcat.
The Italians did NOT have it British troops in Italy did.
I got a chance to drive a SHERMAN tank at Ft. Benning after returning from vietnam. 75mm gun. I drove a m-48 in vietnam and this was like operateing a very light weight and slow tank. 69th armor.
Great vid love the forged for battle episodes you do please pump out more of them. I think the Firefly was very smart thinking buy the Brits but even with some crew discomforts was the best way to address the German and Tiger tank problem than producing a whole new tank. Though in the game War Thunder I think they need to give the gun the better punch it deserves as I find it hard from the front to knock out Tiger and Panther tanks and even T34 tanks to a degree.
Angled armor, I use the archer often
The 17pounder is magnificent but you have to realise the tiger had a 88mm gun the 17 pounder is good but it will struggle past tigers and things I usually don't have issues but I don't play much past 4.0 and I try aim for the mass and not the armour plates as with the solid shot the best damage I can do is shrapnel through the centre idk don't have much tips but it's still kinda inferior to the tigers armor etc, but these where some of the most heavily armoured tanks ever produced as well
Just creep up beside them and shoot them above the tracks about 40% of the way from the front to rear
They put there ammo there like fools and crew
@@danielspoon1234 Oh I've gotten some good hits on them its yeah being in the right place at the right time. Yeah in the Sherman it has no chance agianst the 88 or longer 75mm of the Panther tank. Its the T34 tanks that should be easier meat with the 17 pounder I think they are also a bit OP. On the British line I'm almost up to 4.0 others countries down at 2.0-3.0 so getting there.
This is from Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 by S.A. Hart Pg 14 and I quote" Firing armoured piercing rounds the gun could penetrate 172mm armour at 914m range ---sufficient to penetrate even the Tigers formidable gun-mantlet armour " end quote
I can't wait to see you do videos on the other up gun Sherman's like the French/Israel Super Shermans (the 75mm SA80 and 105mm version).
And Argentina's Sherman Repotenciado, which uses the same 105 as the Israeli Sherman M-51.
Me also!
prepare for the hartred of the tiger lovers
Ok
The Sherman IC(Hybrid) at 15:22...Was that specific one used as a frontline combat vehicle,or as the track hanger of the entire division..I see Sherman tracks,Churchill tracks..and are those that of a Valentine aswell?:D
Mmm... The US Army seems to consider depression to be a more important criterion than you give credit for. Perhaps British doctrine/design philosophy does not emphasise it, but if a tank had 'only' 8 degrees of depression as opposed to ten (such as T32 was found to have in testing), negative commentary resulted. Ten degrees seems to have been the mandatory minimum for the US Army from early WW2 through to today.
And is the 'most deadly tank' the one with the gun which can kill more types of target, or the one which can kill more of the likely targets faster? Therein lies one of the philosophical differences of the two countries.
Definitely could have gone into both of those in more detail but better to cover them in their own videos I think as they're complex topics. Much of the criticism of tanks with limited gun depression I see from people seems to stem from the close range sorts of engagements most tank games feature which makes gun depression seem considerably more important than if it's a real world engagement
Good old "If it's stupid but it works, then it's not stupid" sentence fit in here.
Oh no, don't put the Sherman in the jar.
I would love if you could do a video on the details of the t25 variants including the T26E5 Pershing jumbo and the super Pershing.
Great video, would love to see one on DD tanks.
thw barrel on the firefly was too long to fit the floatation device
Great info. Professionally done. Thank you. At 6:17, the tank pictured appears to have German markings, perhaps they stole Shermans?
Maybe the extra crew member on the Italian Firefly acts as an additional loader readying and handing up ammo to the main loader?
Great video. I also appreciate your callouts to other TH-cam creators.
The Firefly is a beast
I am very very happy the AC-IV Thunderbolt was mentioned. the Sentinel line of tanks is one of Australia's best war-time achievements i think besides the current Austeyr bullpup our armed forces use now :)
Owen gun...
@@ariatheaurawitch yeah I loved the Owen. made marksman first time I used it. Pissed of the Major no end.
c'mon man how could you do that to lazerpig?
Erich Hartmann when he actually needs skill because he is in an actual fight: oh no * *blows up* *
Tank crews preferred the shorter 75mm because most engagements were against infantry, AT guns, and lightly skinned vehicles. As a result the primary round was high explosive.
I'm not in the reality where the 17pdr never had HE, also most targets tanks shot at used HE so ur comment is a revelation of your limited knowledge
@@ghdfhsfnfgbadfhsfh??
The biggest reason the US didn't have 76mm Shermans at D-Day was because the Crews didn't want them.
Just because the 17pdr. had HE ammunition, doesn't mean the troops didn't still like the HE capability of the 75mm gun more.
First of all, the 17pdr. has much larger shells in the same space as the 75mm. The 17 pdr.'s rate of fire is thus substantially lower than that of the 75mm M3.
Secondly, the 17 pdr. had a smaller bursting charge when compared to the 75mm.
Finally, the 75.. was loved for it's HE performance, to the point it get's favourably compared to the excellent American 105mm Howitzers.
There is a reason the British had platoons of 4 75mm Shermans and 1 Firefly.
@@ghdfhsfnfgbadfhsfh
1) It _appears_ you think I said the 17 pounder didn't have HE. I know it did. But it had less explosive filler, was slower to fire and due to it's size, fewer rounds could be carried. Making it less useful. *_Which was the point of my comment._*
2) Your limited capacity to read, comprehend, communicate, and attempt to insult my intelligence, is your badge of shame, not mine.
@@harmdallmeyer6449not only didn't the crews want them, they felt like the 76s weren't necessary, cause 75s were killing tigers and panthers elsewhere.
@@harmdallmeyer6449 Not all the time by late 44 the Brits and Canadians were going to Cromwell tanks 3 /troop to one Firefly Source Tanks of the World David Miller Page 355
If i were to crack a guess as to why Italy added that 5 crewman back? Well, two theories
1 being they added him back to help send rounds up from the lower stores after the first six shots
2 being he was added back to help with maintenance, seeing how the fireflies did have increased wear on the suspension
Or maybe both? Idk
Regarding the flash in the fighting compartment, it was alleged you could tell a Firefly crew by the lack of hair or eyebrows below the beret line.
Concerning the action in which Wittmann was killed, Gunner Joe Ekins of the Northamptonshire Yeomanry dispatched 3 Tigers in that action, 1 of which may have been Wittmann. If it wasn’t Gunner Ekins, it was the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers. Unfortunately, their account is lost.
There is an excellent video by Richard Smith,, stepping down as the Director of the Tank Museum at Bovington, describing the action and Gunner Ekins’ role. The video is called “VE Day: Ekins, Wittmann and the defeat of Germany”. Joe Ekins lived to a ripe old age and was well known at the museum, as was his comrade Ken Tout, author of some excellent books, who died last year. It was Ken Tout, as a historian of the conflict who identified Ekins as the man who likely killed Wittmann.
Since it is impossible for any tank shell to travel 1000 yards, change direction and enter an enemy tank from the other side it is not possible that Ekins fired the shot that killed Wittmann and his crew. Read Brian Reid's "No Holding Back, Operation Totalise Normandy August 1944" and the appendix he dedicated to this subject.
@@ToddSauve Ekins was a gunner in a Firefly. The 17pdr has an effective range of 0.93 miles, 1637yds or 1.5km, so the Tigers on the field that day were well within the range of any Canadian or British Fireflies on the field. Whoever was in those tanks that day, Ekins’ 3 Tigers and a MKIV later on is a feat of gunnery worthy of note.
Reid went on to say "It should be emphasized that the truly important thing is that British and Canadian soldiers destroyed Five Tigers as well as a number of other AFV’s, this defeating the left wing of SS-Oberführer Kurt Meyer’s counterattack. The death of Wittmann was no more than an incidental result of the battle. It may be more than coincidence that this was the only area where the Phase 2 forces were able to make any substantial gains later this afternoon.
One last point - and an important one - the accident of fate that saw Wittmann fell prey to a Sherbrooke Fusilier tank does not mean that 1 Northamptonshire Yeomanry and 144 Regiment RAC were in any way inferior to the Canadian unit in skill or training. It was a case of pure blind chance that the path Michael Wittmann chose led into the sights of a Canadian Sherman. Given the slightest of changes in circumstances, he could just as easily have fallen prey to British tank"
Any of those tanks could have fallen prey to any Commonwealth Tank present that day. Unfortunately we don’t have the Sherbrooke’s account because their Headquarters truck was destroyed by a U.S. aircraft…
None of the Commonwealth tankers that day knew Wittmann was there, or even who he was.
Wittmann was pretty much a product of Nazi propaganda and his exploits are possibly more dubious than the circumstances of his death. Many ‘Tank Aces’ accrued fantastical ‘scores’ on the Eastern Front for circumstances specific to that time and place. Allied tankers always worked as teams and it’s rare, for example for anything to be attributed to someone like Ekins.
Of Villers Bocage , John Buckley said "many historians through to today continue to repackage unquestioningly Nazi propaganda".
Otto Carius for example allegedly got quite upset about the idea of ‘aces’ and ‘kills’.
When it was believed that Ekin’s indisputably dealt with Wittmann he said “He accepted the doctrines of Hitler enough to get in his tank and invade other peoples' countries. Country after country. To kill men, women and children. He might have been a hero to the Germans, but not to me.”
@@callumgordon1668 I agree 100% Callum! Way too much has been made of this fanatical Nazi party and SS member Michael Wittmann. He deserves to be forgotten.
This is from Firefly V Tiger by S A Hart page 62 Eakers was at around 800m The Canadian Fireflies of the Sherbrooke Fusiliers were at 1100m and the RAC on Hill 122 were at 1300m it is probable that Eakers round was the one that got Wittmann That day Eakers got 3 tigers in 12 minutes firing 5 shots
@@jacktattis Read Brian Reid's book listed above. Then do a TH-cam search for a documentary about the "Black Baron" from Norm Christie. It proves Ekins was over 1000 yards from Wittmann's Tiger while the Canadians were less than 500 FEET! There is a lot of sloppy research and lies out there done by fanboys who say what they want to, not the provable facts.
My personal guess is the 5 crew man was put in so it would be easier to drive and navigate. While yes to commander should do that tell the commander in a heavy firefight in a city OR on a mountain side road to get out and see where the hell to go without getting the entire crew killed. The 5th crew member could also possibly assist with loading the non ready rack shells.
When British and Americans get together to do some crafty stuff.
Either Germans or Italians lose 🤣👌
Truly a tank that shocked the Axis great video
Incoming!
19:22 of course being black and white back then made camouflage much more effective...
Would love to see you make a video about the Black Prince.
As I think to remember, tank Commander, "Oddball" claims in the film: "Kellys Heroes", that the only way a Sherman may delay a Tiger, is by letting it shoot holes in it! 😁
A very important factor regarding the 75 shermans in normandy and europe in general. While the short 75s did struggle against the big cats, keep in mind there werent a whole lot of them overall. Many were in the eastern front. And when most of what youre fighting is enemy troops, bunkers, enemy encampments, and light/medium tanks with 50-80 mm of armor overall, the short 75 was perfectly acceptable.
Everyone likes to focus on the tigers and panthers but most of what wouldve been encountered would be panzer 3, 4, stugs, and other older light tanks or SPGs. Which the sherman was very capable against. Tank on tank battles only occurred about 15% of the time if i recall. The rest was basically troop support, breakthroughs, travel, etc.
And that's why the British units only used one Firefly per platoon, the rest being 75mm.
Which is why the gun barrel had to be disguised.
@@ollep9142 exactly. Hence the odd camos you see on the barrels and whatnot
In Normandy there were 654 Panthers and 138 Tigers, plus 26 Jagdpanthers so overall over 800 big cats. The overwhelming majority on the British /Canadian sector. That's a fair amount, and around 1/3 of all German armour deployed there (2,336). Source. Zetterling, Normandy 1944.
@@lyndoncmp5751 huh, I was always told the majority were deployed to the eastern front.
I mean regardless, less than 1000 big cats vs...lets say 10k to 20k Sherman's out of the almost 50k made is a big difference. I kinda made up those numbers but there were a lot of Sherman's in Europe at the least.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Now compare that number of 800 to the number of towed ATGs, Panzerfausts, Panzershrecks and every other type of threat present.
Take also into consideration that engagement distances (read "line of sight") was rarely more than a (very) few hundred meters, where the basic 75 was also mostly good enough even at the tougher armor.
I feel a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of wehraboos suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
Nothing is better than hearing the cries of wehraboos.
For the Americans pre-D/Day, the Firefly was disqualified by the NIH rule - Not Invented Here. Just like Hobart's Funnies!
Can we get a video on the fv4202?
Maybe the extra crewmember on the Italian one is to help the Loader, being able to get ammo up from lower in the hull to cut down on time spent loading when the ready rack's empty? Maybe they figured that having the gun be able to fire faster and more consistently was more beneficial than the whole ammo count?
Im curious as to how well that Sherman handled a 122mm in it. 😂
This is the longest War Thunder ad I've ever seen.
Oof fuck me man, you just ain't got the mass of my boy, godspeed king
20:10 they actually got me on this :D Didn't notice a longer barrel at first because of the camouflage
Hey I know this will probably be harder for you to research, but could you do a video on the Turan or Toldi tanks? I think Hungarian armor, while not playing a massive role in the war is an interesting look into tank design done by smaller countries.
So many pluses that the Sherman had in original form. So adaptable ( See Hobart’s funny’s ) To face the Tiger and Panther, and the excellent ye olde Mk IV, the seventeen pounder Firefly, was a war time improvisation that was very creditable.
"The Tank the Tiger Respected, the Sherman Firefly" might be a better title for the video...The only thing that scared the German tank crews were the Allied planes. No offense