The Firefly frightened the life out of German tanks crews and the appearance of one guaranteed they were the first the german guns targetted. A former German tank commander said the 17pdr reminded him of the 88. Very few were trained to operate the Firefly properly but a first rate commander could use the gun to deadly effect. One perfect engagement saw a Firefly kill three Panthers and a Tiger mk 1.
That was a good shot of the mess Wittmann left behind I suspect...
Yes, the Firefly wasn't aptly named...
The std 76mm Sherman would need to get a good side shot or hope for a turret jam shot, but it was a regular Sherman that took out Wittmann in his Tiger...from the rear left flank...
It was the same 90mm high velocity cannon that is on all m-26 Pershing's. And I have the proof of the kill. The modified Pershing had some more armor and thicker turret casting but other then that same tank. I have the statement of the declassified file. Would you like to see it?
Yes at the end of the war a m26 Pershing shot a king tiger with one shot through the front and blew it's turret off! And yes it did happen if you do not believe me I have a written and verified statement from a prototype m-26 Pershing crew!
Doubtfull as first this was not a pershing bu a highly modified "super pershing" and no it's not a fact as there have been problems with the dates given when the engagement took place not to mention that the german records all make it clear that there wasn't a schwere abteilung around for miles.
From the end of 1943, the Sherman the heavier German tanks (Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger, King Tiger, Hunting Tiger) in the battle clearly inferior, so under ideal conditions, even a single "Tiger" a Sherman-association could because of its superior firepower heavy losses inflict. The high production rate of the M4 and the adjusted relative to the German vehicles easy repair and maintenance of the qualitative difference by massive numerical superiority
Ab Ende 1943 war der Sherman den schwereren deutschen Panzern (Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger, Königstiger, Jagdtiger) im Gefecht deutlich unterlegen; so konnte unter idealen Bedingungen selbst ein einzelner „Tiger“ einem Sherman-Verband aufgrund seiner überlegenen Feuerkraft schwere Verluste zufügen. Die hohe Produktionsrate des M4 sowie die im Vergleich zu den deutschen Fahrzeugen einfache Reparatur und Wartung glichen den qualitativen Unterschied durch massive quantitative Überlegenheit aus
people have got to realize that overall, the 17 pounder was the best Anti tank gun out during the war. its armor penetrating capabilities were much higher compared to the 88mm on the tiger and the 75mm on the panther. in fact, when it fired a sabot round, it had the ability to penetrate a king tigers armor as well. The sherman is looked down too much, as this gun proves even the worst tanks can become killers.
@22tasos22 let me clarify so that you have a better understanding of what i meant. When the 17 pounder fired a sabot round, it had the capabilities to penetrate the kings tigers frontal armor. However, there are no combat records in which a firefly ever encountered a king tiger, but theoritcally it could've happened.
@dearhboy Sabot okay i surrender :) I play a game called Men Of War its full of realism and one thing i know..SABOT round =death (the tanks dont have health they take a hit either bounces off or get destroyed)
And yet the 88mm gun develloped years before was better. Muuuuuch better. german engineering. And no... I never heared of that Firefly. Must be pretty famous :D.
But I know things with the phrases: "Desert Rats", "27 Tanks", "killed by" "One Tiger", "Wittman" I believe you know that one do you?
@ rapitisioannis: So what? We're talking about the gun aren't we? So this gun was able to penetrate any allied tank at a distance of 3000 meters. If you insist putting the crew into this. Remember one thing: The German tank-crewman had a much higher viability and not only therefore much more training :)
@moleman9000 Is that so? well fine. They had one year the better trained crew? How long did the war last? :D No fence dude. This gun stil penetrates at 3000 meters.
Well and he 88 mm gun the germans got on their tigers years before was able to penetrate ANY allied tank at a distance of 3000 meters. so. Not a real counter this 17 pounder, isnt it?
@Manni4life umm, yes? Because before the 17-pounder we had nothing that could do what it could! So obviously it was good. Ever hear of the British Firefly that took out 3 Tiger Tanks in one combat action? I'd love to hear of an M3, or an M4 Sherman, with the standard low velocity 76mm gun do that.
Overall germany had probably 3 failures, not upgrading their tanks early enough, mixing high quality vehicles such as the Panther and Tiger 2 with obsolete Stug 3s and Panzer 4s, and 3 using too many experimental designs.
If the Panzer 4 had changed its turret with a bigger gun and sloped armor, it would have become a mini Panther.
@ChaosTicket THey did try to fit a Panther turret with shutzen stand off armor to a Panzer IV but they realized the size weight of the gun meant the Panzer IV was beyond its limits to take such a big gun. The Allies also had problems fitting bigger guns to a SHerman and the CHurchill unfortunately. Also - it was also expensive to fund/research a brandnew gun and just install it straight away if one thinks economically as well.
The Sherman was reliable and designed for ease of maintenence and repair. Not upgunning and uparmoring them was a real failure. Read about General Leslie MacNair who stopped the improvement of the M-4 in favor of the tank destroyers. Only an idiot would not realize that an M-10 and M-36 were still M-4's. The Sherman and T-34 wer war winners the Panthers were war losers. All they ever did was give a temporary tactical advantage which is not a gaurentee of winning battles let along campaigns.
@scottduncan44 But they did up armor and upgun it. the base M4 sherman had around 50mm armor in a "lazy" slope and a 75mm, later they upgraded them with 76mm guns that could perform much better, and turned armor to about 60mm hard sloped.
The Panther's failure was simply because they mix high quality panthers, with increasingly low quality Panzer 4s, Stugs, etc.
Panthers were great when they worked, when they had fuel and ammo when they got to the front. They had a serious problem with the transmission which if it failed was very difficult to repair.The western allies fought a stratigic war. They bombed German factories limiting production, they bombed railroads limiting transportation of tanks , fuel and ammo, they bombed the roads limiting movement . They attacked the tanks themselves. So of 6,000 Panthers How many actually reached the front lines.
@scottduncan44 Panther against a T-34/85 or JS-2 is also interesting - if one dismisses the obvious weakness of the Russian tanks. The T-34/85 has numbers, 90mm armor, speed, ease of manufacter and a BIGGER 85mm gun that could do more HE damage. The Panther however has a better AP/AT gun, superior optics and experienced crews. The JS-2 is obvious - the huge 122mm gun will lay waste to anything - and could spall a tank if the shot is properly aimed.
@Gooseman2k2 yeah it was excellent, in Africa before M36s, Pershings, Fireflys, Achilles, and 76mm armed shermans arrived after normandy.
The Tiger was superior in 3 regards, armor, firepower, and range. However once a M36 or M26 pershing comes in, the Tiger 1 is the loser, costly double or triple.
@ChaosTicket The Pershing should be measured against very very late war tanks... such as the Tiger 2... or the Panther F. In which case the Pershing was again... Woefully underpowered! The tiger 2 could bounce any gun the allies had from the front! And was never penetrated frontally in combat!
The Firefly is absolutely no match for the tiger in any way! Just that the firefly had a CHANCE to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger past 100m
@Gooseman2k2 Actually it was, The Sherman Firelfy is the ONE vehicle which had a confirmed kill on a Tiger 2.
Dont forget, the Sherman Firefly's gun was 76mm high velocity anti-tank gun, not really multi role. When is was additionally equipped with HVAP and APDS rounds, they tore through Tiger 1s, so did M26s and M36s.
The Firefly had a better gun than the Panther or Tiger on a smaller and cheaper frame=mass production. To a lesser degree the T-34/85 had the same treatment.
@ChaosTicket The Mayfly Sherman's QF 17 Pounder was slightly superior to the Panther in AP but HE was an issue intially - some Allied tankmen even claimed that the basic Shermans 75mm gun was better in general HE performance than the QF 17 pounder due to the tendency towards a high velocity AT/AP work. The Bengal Tiger's KwK 43 > QF 17 pounder in AP/HE performance by natural. Also - the Tiger I's 88mm kwk 36 gun, whilst weaker in AP - remember the 17 pounder had some APDS accuracy issues
@ChaosTicket The Tiger I's KwK 36 would have superior accuracy/stability and also the fact that if it were in the long range shots. Furthermore the HE shot would be more damaging than the Mayfly 1c Sherman tank. Still the QF17 pounder gave German tank commanders a reality check - hence Mayfly Shermans were singled as priority targets. Now for T34/85? It is interesting to compare it to the Panther. The PaK 42 75mm gun was superior to the 85mm ZiS 53 in AP/AT and accuracy - BUT the ZiS 53 had a BI
@ChaosTicket The ZiS 53 naturally had a BIGGER caliber than the PaK 42 so it would be a more useful shot in HE in 1-1 - but the Soviet tank had poorer optics, poorer accuracy, limited radios and sometimes ammunition was a quality problem against the Panther or Tiger tanks for the matter.
While the 17 pounder Firefly gun had great AP, it was notoriously not very accurate beyond 800 metres, had a lot of smoke discharge and the recoil was immense.
At Villers Bocage a Firefly supposedly fired at Wittmann's tank a few times at range and completely missed.
If the 17 pounder had been more accurate then maybe Michael Wittmann would have died that day.
I'd say the German 88 L/56 and the 75mm L/70 were superior overall to the 17 pounder.
@Birdy890 I was about to mention that. Tank Ace Michael Wittman in a Tiger 1 was killed by a Sherman Firefly. I dont even think they had APDS ammo yet. the 17 pounder guns were the only true counter to the Tiger 1 and Panther tanks at Normandy. When they were given APDS ammunition, they were even more effective, even if it was a relatively experimental ammunition.
No Wittmann was unlikely to have been killed by a Firefly. The forward Tigers were ambushed on the flanks by Joe Ekins hidden Firefly at 700 yards but it is now thought that Wittmann's tank was actually knocked out by a much closer Canadian Sherman 75mm firing from the opposite side and hidden in the grounds of a chateau about 150 yard to Wittmann's left.
Recent analysis points to the killer shell penetrating Wittmann's Tiger's LEFT side, where the Canadians were firing.
By the way guys (including Birdy8900) I was talking about FRONTAL PENETRATIONS of the Tiger I at VERY long ranges (i.e 1,000 yards and more). There are no recorded cases of a Firefly or a Pershing or a M36 frontally penetrating a Tiger I at very long distances.
Wittmann and his other Tigers were knocked out by ambushed flanking shots and even a Sherman 75mm could do that at close range.
The APDS ammo for the Firefly was badly inaccurate at long ranges and though it could penetrate more armour it actually did less damage inside the penetrated tank than regular AP ammo.
The Firefly 17 pounder was not very accurate over 800 metres whereas the Tiger's 88mm L/56 still made hits at 2,000 and even 3,000 metres.
The APDS ammo for the Firefly was badly inaccurate at long ranges and though it could penetrate more armour it actually did less damage inside the penetrated tank than regular AP ammo.
The Firefly 17 pounder was not very accurate over 800 metres whereas the Tiger's 88mm L/56 still made hits at 2,000 and even 3,000 metres.
The APDS ammo for the Firefly was badly inaccurate at long ranges and though it could penetrate more armour it actually did less damage inside the penetrated tank than regular AP ammo.
The Firefly 17 pounder was not very accurate over 800 metres whereas the Tiger's 88mm L/56 still made hits at 2,000 and even 3,000 metres.
Please cite just ONE bona fide proven case of a Firefly, Pershing or M36 taking out a Tiger I frontally at long range and cite the Tiger unit, location and date.
I'm pretty sure you are not going to find anything.
There were very few Tigers in NW Europe by the time the M36 and Pershing entered combat.
Only 1 Pershing ever knocked out a Tiger I but it was at close range and a Tiger I also knocked out a Pershing so they finished the score at 1-1 by the end of the war.
""You do know that it was a Canadian Firefly that killed Wittmann right?""
No it wasn't. It was likely a Canadian Sherman 75mm firing at Wittmann's left flank at a relatively short distance, about 150 yards or less.
The only Firefly in the area was British and the gunner was Joe Ekins. Again it was flank shots that did the other Tigers. Flank shots on the RIGHT side, from a hidden orchard at around 700 yards.
Wittmann's tank was the most rear Tiger and closer to the Canadians.
"When is was additionally equipped with HVAP and APDS rounds, they tore through Tiger 1s, so did M26s and M36s."
I've not yet come across one bona fide proven case where a Firely or M36 or Pershing knocked out a Tiger I at very long range, especially frontally.
At closer ranges on the flank even a Sherman 75 had been known to KO a Tiger so for all the 17 pounder's technical ability on paper there are no records of Fireflys or M36 or Pershing KO a Tiger frontally from very far.
@Gooseman2k2 If using APDS shot - it could theoretically have a chance to knock a Bengal Tiger - but APDS had ammo quality issues, poor accuracy compared to standard APCR shots and also was a solid shot rather than dealing much HE damage. The Bengal Tiger's armor was extremely formidable - 150mm sloped - unlike the flawed Kubinka tests staged - where 'the armor seams cracked due to poor workmanship!' What about the JS-2 tank?
@ChaosTicket The Tiger I could still nail an M36 Jackson without trouble though - given the Jackson didn't exactly rely on thick armor - relying more on the M3 90mm and speed. THe JS-2 could also be a bigger challenge to a Tiger I in a 1 - 1 fight at long range - Korsun Shekensovsky showed despite being eventually nailed by the Tiger I's and Panzer IV's the JS-2 at 2000 yards could withstand a Tiger I's 88mm KwK 36 until 1100 yards. NOte - these JS-2's were early 1943 models with shot traps
@HeirofGojira91 No the M36 was pretty much a counter to the Tiger 1. The m10 wolverine wasnt much better than the M4 sherman, the M36 was a major up armor and upgunning of the Wolverine.
The M36 was in some ways better, as its armor was sloped, it was much smaller, and easier to make.
The m36 and M26 pershing were overall ment to be counters to the heavier german tanks such as the Tiger 1. They were successful in that, but not so much the much heavier ones such as the Tiger 2.
@ChaosTicket But was its armor capable of withstanding a Tiger I's 88mm KwK at long range? Given it was small and light - and sloped don't mean its will always withstand all shots - take the JS-2 tanks - they could withstand a Tiger I's shot but they weren't 100% immune to the shot at 1100 ranges. However yes the Jackson was a quantum leap in WWII for the Americans to have some firepower to knock the Tiger I and Panther - I won't disagree in that. Its the armor part I'm not convinced -
@ChaosTicket What about T-34/85 vs Panther tanks - say Ausf A/G - the Soviet tank was faster, lighter, cheaper and had 90mm armor - with a bigger gun that could deal a bigger HE shell than the Panther. But the Panther was said to have superior optics and the PaK 42 could still have better AP/AT capabilities over the T-34/85 - one force of Panther/Tigers destroyed a bigger force of T-34/85 and JS-2's at a battle in May '44
Keep in mind that the M36 didn't see combat until late 1944 and the Pershing not until early 1945 while the Tiger I was in combat in autumn 1942 so they should have been a counter considering they were 2 years behind in development. I don't think that is anything to be proud of. It is to be expected.
Mind you, the M36 and Pershing rarely encountered the Tiger I as very few Tiger Is were in the west in late '44/early '45.Just 2 units in NW Europe.More King Tigers were encountered.
More than that, the 17 pounder was designed specifically as an anti-tank gun, compared to the 75mm US gun which was general purpose.
The US did eventually have the M26 Pershing, M36 Jackson, and upgunned the M4 shermans, but the Firefly was before all those came to be.
The Tiger wasnt excellent, but with a long range, high accuracy gun that would kill the sherman in 1 shot, compared to the shermans which needed to rush to close range, in numbers, and focus on the sides and rear.
@ChaosTicket weapons are measured by what they are up against...
The Tiger is an EXCELLENT tank... armor, firepower, visibility, and FEAR FACTOR! Yea it had major major flaws... but compared to it's contemporaries... the T-34 and the Sherman... it was so vastly superior it was ludicrous!
no a pathetic tank that threatens a relatively small area with its gun...the Sherman's superior tracks and numbers extend the threatened area by hundreds of miles...also can literally turn 180 degrees and march to the fighting as Patton did with his tanks...thats the whole "be all" of tank warfare, get thar firstus with the mostus as Forrest said ....where most Shermans were, there usually were no Panthers...
@0puest0 Study history, more often then not, 5 to 1 ratio, and to boot, the US used an extremely mobile dedicated TD division. the M10 GMC had a kill ratio of 10 to 1 in armor combat, most losses being racked by landmine and anti-armour infantry. The short 75 was adequate and even excelled against it's designated target, the PZK IV. but the panther, a tank exceeding the sherman's tonnage by 20 ton, was a cumlated research that made the first basic MBT.
@0puest0 Simple matters of ballistics. Then variation of conditions. The 76 mm Ordinance 17 pounder used good ammunition and if I recall could penetrate about 140 or so mm of steel. And because this was the first war of true tank to tank combat, one can hardly say any tank was pathetic, early designs hardly pan out first time out.
At West Point Museum there is a Sherman tank out in front of the parking lot. The front hull on the tank clearly has a several inch plate welded to it and the gun is definitely an update with a 76mm gun.
the panther was a good tank but it had a weak transmisson but the 76mm guns of the sherman could penatrate the side armor. the british offered thier 17 pounder gun to american forces but turned it down do to pride but the 90mm was excellent when it came into service.
South of Buron, a counterattack by Panzer IV and Panther tanks of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment was defeated by M10 Achilles (cousin of the Firefly) self-propelled anti-tank guns and 17-pounder anti tank guns of 245th Battery, 62nd Antitank Regiment. Thirteen German tanks were destroyed in one of the most successful antitank engagements of the campaign, for the loss of four tank destroyers and a further four damaged”. Not bad.
Always amuses me a little whwn folks say that superior German tanks lost because they were too hard/complicated/slow to build - it's true, of course, but if they had (hypothetically) built lots and lots more somewhat lower quality tanks more on a par with the allies instead they still wouldn't have been able to produce enough and their tanks still would have lost - only they would have lost more of them.
Firefly was no more than a simple modified Sherman. The GF-17 pounder was horrible at HE. Shermans with 76mm guns apparently go, to this day, unrecognised. If only historians in England, and the U.S (Dumbest of all), even learned of the existence of these tanks.
@Tyco200 I take it you refer all US Historians as (Dumb) Interesting, Im not going to call anyone names, as it shows a lack of respect and maturity. Centurian was a great tank but not even close to production for WWII. November of 1946 it actually entered service officially with the 5th RTR. Sherman Firefly, great Bandaid for what it was, however it was 1mph slower then the Panzer MK IV and the Panther was capable of 35mph, which they later limited to 29mph to save on the transmissions.
One of the main reasons Germany lost the war was because there tanks were to difficult to mass produce take the tiger for example one of the best tanks in the war but only about 1500 were ever built
@Sparty1234561 Sherman with HVSS, a 76mm M1 would rape a panther or even the tiger anyday. Tiger was a slow, fragile, vulnerable, wasteful piece of junk. The Panther was no more than teething problems on a terrible design. Good armor and firepower? Yes. Good tank? Nope. Shermans defeated Panthers at over 1,400 meters, and at times, even 1,600. Fact: Most "duels" with tanks in Europe happened with infantry.
@StylexStyler the Churchill tank was not built to be a hillclimber it was just it was very good at that,also in the Korean war the terrain meant that tanks needed to be able to cope with mountainous terrain.
@crpdst2003 And the best tank to tank tank then was either the Centurion (A Juggernaut), or the Sherman M4A3E8, which raped the T-34-85 in every encounter. Let's not forget the major differences between soviet pig-sty junk and American wolves! T-34-85 has ammunition exposed, horrible optics, bad transmission problems, cheap and very thin frontal armor, horrible compartments for its crew and a bad gun, which was beaten even by the Panzer IV's 75mm PaK-40.
@Tyco200 I agree with you here the T-34 was a nightmare, transmission, crappy optics and crew conditions. The 85mm was not comparable to the Panther at all. The Centurion I would not use as a comparable source as it did not see combat in WWII and would have to wait till the Korean War I beleive. While the Panther II, and King Tigers would have seen another update had the war swayed differently I think. The Germans were already planning more HP to the Tigers, and streamlining production.
@crpdst2003 Let's also not forget that Shermans had ammunition storage, 68mms of slopped protection by then, outstanding speed, well done compartments (Despite a high profile/box shape), good suspension, excellent main gun and very good optics.
IMO - This was the ONLY useful tank destroyer the western allies had for the bulk of the war. I reckon the T35/85 and Russian tanks were way better than the lion's share of western allied tanks. The 17 pounder was a great piece of kit. We should have had them in the million. Then we could have kicked more ass. Mind you back then the Germans were better trained, a 'natural' army - put that down to the 'Prussian' mentality.
@Juicingood But what about the M36 Gun Motor Carriage better known as the Jackson Tank destroyer? If firing HVAP from the 90mm M3 gun it could also do well plus it was lighter than most German tanks so it had a maneuvering advantage depending on crew skill. The British also mounted the 17 pounder into thier 'Achilles' version of the M10 tank destroyer :) The Russians too had the SU-100, ISU-152 and IS-2m tanks. Still the Panther could still punch a Sherman Mayfly without too much trouble.
@Juicingood How does a Panther compare to say an IS-2? You mentioned the Russian tanks being way better than the lion's share of Western Allied tanks. But Russian tanks were criticized for cramped conditions, poor optics and non-user friendly ergonomics though they were 'cheaper' than say a German tank. Indeed the 17 pounder was amongst the best Allied AT-guns used, only the PaK 43 was superior to it when firing Tungsten Shells as the APDS of the 17 pounder wasn't exactly the best in accuracy.
@Juicingood It wasn't the only one the British also had modified M10's called Achilles and Archer tank destroyer both armed with the same 17 pounder as the Firefly, Also in the closing stages of the War they had a few Comet tanks.
everybody always forgets that the russian done a lot to defeat the nazis with the eastern front. if it wasnt for them we wouldnt have pushed the germans back from france. fact.
@jujitsuman68 We would of, but it has been estimated it could of tanken between an extra 12-18 months. But this doesn't include if another offensive was opened up through Italy. Which should of been done anyway, would of crushed the Axis a lot quicker.
@jujitsuman everybody forgets that big improvment in soviets tatics owed alot more to the radio sets provided by the allies than their tanks.....German radios sets did much to keep Mk III and IV's edge aganist soviet armor until Tiger and MK IV specials arrived....
@crpdst2003 thats a different debate mate, the russians pushed the germans back with heavy artillery and ariel bombardment. and lets not forget thousands upon thousands of tanks. but good call.
2:44-2:48 - that is one fast, big powerful German cat on tracks! With armor and a poten gun indeed :D Who could imagine how the Jagdpanther would fare if it was compared with the M3 Grant-Lee tank?!
pershings weren't introduced till the last few months of the war and was frankly one of the best tanks of the war out classing several german tanks by far. It was modeled almost bolt for bolt from the t-34 in that it had sloped armour, a large gun was easy to work on its design was engineered with taking it apart in mind.
german heavy armor was the mistake the germans made, tiger, king tiger ..... where big and heavy to heavy nr 1 in firepower but in little towns these things could not manuvre like a sherman, if I get to choose, big heavy and slow, and not in great numbers, or smaller faster and in great numbers, I would go for the 2nd, dont get me wrong the sherman was far from a A+ tank but with the help from artillery and air support these things won the war
@FutureMarine246 The tank still had teething problems, and since there were only 20 in combat, with no real combat except for about 6 actual actions with the enemy, and having 2 Pershings knocked out, eventually repaired its difficult at best to get an idea of how well they actually performed since all the combat took place on average of 500m at best. The tank was quickl;y replaced by the M46 Patton.
@FutureMarine246 LOL The crazy thing is the Pershing was for its size and weight a Medium tank for the time, and I know you already knew that.. LOL Anyways They had great Armor and if they had mass produced the Super Pershing they may not have been so scared of the Soviets during the peace talks etc at the end of the War, maybe... LOL After all the Allies really only had the Firefly and numerous 76mm Shermans vs Soviet JSII and at the end JSIII to contend with. Yikes!!
@FutureMarine246 LOL The crazy thing is the Pershing was for its size and weight a Medium tank for the time, and I know you already knew that.. LOL Anyways They had great Armor and if they had mass produced the Super Pershing they may not have been so scared of the Soviets during the peace talks etc at the end of the War, maybe... LOL After all the Allies really only had the Firefly and numerous 76mm Shermans vs Soviet JSII and at the end JSIII to contend with. Yikes!!
@FutureMarine246 LOL The crazy thing is the Pershing was for its size and weight a Medium tank for the time, and I know you already knew that.. LOL Anyways They had great Armor and if they had mass produced the Super Pershing they may not have been so scared of the Soviets during the peace talks etc at the end of the War, maybe... LOL After all the Allies really only had the Firefly and numerous 76mm Shermans vs Soviet JS2 and at the end JS3 to contend with. Yikes!!
@JuergenGDB yea but the American philosophy is different, or it was back then. We used tanks to support infantry, and we used tank killers and artillery but mostly air power to kill enemy tanks.
@JuergenGDB Pershing's 90 was also on the M-48s. ;) And they killed T-54/55s easily, like the pigs those things were! Haha, and let's not forget the junk named "T-62!" Shermans armed with 76mm armed modified Panther guns of France killed T-54/55 and 62s at 2,400 meters with HEAT ROUNDS. We didn't need anything practically new.
@SLYR237 in which way? The firefly's main gun fired a better AP round than the T-34s 76 or 85mm gun. The only way the T-34 would have been better is in the support roll with HE shells.
@captaindyllanrexs you mean the tank that struggled to peenetrate the panther? the panthers 75mm gun fired AT rounds more effectively than the Pershings 90mm did
@captaindyllanrexs it did... its gun was poorly made for the AT role... and outside 500m without special rounds no allied ank could penetrate the front armour of the panther only the front mantlet on the turret. the sherman could not ever penetrate the panthers armour at any range. and even after they improved the 90mm gun it was inferior to the German 88mm gun
@27thlegion The 90mm L73 gun mounted on the M26 super pershing variant was on par with the famed 88mm L71 German design. In fact it could penetrate the frontal armor of the panther tank at some 2600 yards. It did not go into full production however.
I will certainly agree with you about superior German tank gun/anti tank gun performance. Best in World War 2.
@captaindyllanrexs You are correct and big deal. This was done at close quarters so even a Russian 76mm probably would have pentrated, or pretty much any tank at the distances they were fighting from. What you should be asking is could the Panther have penetrated the front of the Pershing at those distances. I beleive they were well within 500-600m.
@captaindyllanrexs Very true, Japanese tanks were pretty much renditions of the French Ft-17, Vickers 6ton and their Loyd carriers, however I believe after the Tri-Partie...treaty the tanks took on somewhat of a chechzlovakia look, at least with the turret. Their Docterine was pretty much of support, and light weight because of the rainforest terrain. Later they had some medium tanks, but again really no match for the good old USA!
@JuergenGDB Hell yes, and remember the beautiful Shermans! 76mm guns killed those Panthers (Unreliable not-so-effective tanks) at 1,200-1,600 meters. Yet, the British, who bitch about their own ammo-exposed Shermans give misleading bullshit about the Sherman. T-34 also had its ammunition exposed, poor frontal armor (45 mms sloped could be pierced by Stug IIIs/IVs, PzIVs, early PzIVs at close range.) and is overly biased. T-34 = shit boar. Sherman = Wolf of God!
@JuergenGDB Actually we did have 1 tank that atleast had some armor on it, The sherman jumbo, Sloped 101mm on the front, and a 76mm that could penatrate the panthers front gun mantlet, but thats all.
@captaindyllanrexs There was also the M36 Jackson Gun Motor Carriage Self-Propelled Tank Destroyer with the M3 90mm gun! :D True it was not strictly a tank nor a Sherman but apparently it gave a good account of it self against the German tanks - as well as the fact American anti-tank crews using the M36 usually had a better survival rate compared to the towed American Anti-tank gun crews using the troubled M5 Anti-tank guns :(
@captaindyllanrexs True... The Jumbo was a good tank for the Allies. had better Armor then the Tiger I. The M4A3E2 or the Jumbo would be fitted with the 76mm towards the end of 1944. However only about 254 were ever produced.... the E2 means Experimental... I think. More Savvy on German Armor, but the US had high hopes for the up and coming Pershing.
@JuergenGDB yeah better than the tiger I :D (wondering from which side btw) Jumbo had thick front armour because it was to be a battering-ram. It was not made in order to fight tanks (because of height and thin tracks western allied tanks were lousy in the at least slightly muddy terrain), but defence points. Followed by the infantry. Only after ww2 western allies learnt how to use tanks properly...
@Shchetchynianin It was the frontal armor of the jumbo.. the turret was an upgraded turret but the side hull shot was still vulnerable... it was however to be used as a assualt tank like you said, I dont think it was until the cold war that tactics really changed 70-80's when europe feared the massive soviet armor blitz. Cheers!
@JuergenGDB I think, that they learnt something from German and soviet blitz from german commanders kept in captive (if Werner von Braun could be a director of NASA precedessor...). The 70's & 80's gave the Western states finally tanks at least comparable to Soviet (still from WW2 US & UK were more after aerial anti-tank approach, because of their far inferiority to German ones...) which could smash the red tide...
@Shchetchynianin Yeah, I knew this chap, he was the Father of one of my friends and he served in Germany in the early 70's to about 78, and he basically was not so certain that NATO would have stopped the USSR if they decided to take all of Germany and keep going. The Leopard was pretty much the mainstay for Europe which I think if proven during that time would have done well.. US had the M60 which was huge, and the Abrams did not show up in Europe till about Late 1980. I miss those old games.
@Shchetchynianin Well I am almost certain that is a little to close for most residents. Belgium, Netherlands, of Course Germany had the Leopard 1, US had the M60A3... but I think it was a question of numbers... just like Germany before its tech vs quantity, however im not so sure the tech in the 70's was far off from each other.
@JuergenGDB that's true, 70's were the time when Western Allies started prevailing with the hi-tec - but not the numbers: this was domain of Soviet block (i.e. amount of Polish-produced t-55 (1964-81) was more than 5 000 - same in Czech Republic)...
@Shchetchynianin LOL, yeah if there was ever a time that the soviets should have invaded, it would have been then. Now, I would say that tech makes the difference, although Soviet docterine I believe is still Hammer and Anvil... Lots of Artillery and Armor backed by Mech troops. I think that Western forces would have a slight advantage in the air...and as we have learned, he who controls airspace, controls the battle space... anyways we have got off topic from the video post.. :) lol
Montgomery was such an arrogant prick!......as big a primadonna as Patton. Montgomery could say "the German Panzer threat was overblown and Allied tanks were up to the task respected of them"........ only because he didn't have to climb into one of the damn things. That's the sort of mentality that prevailed on both sides of the Atlantic, that resulted in many an Allied tanker being killed in inferior and inadequate equipment. Luckily today NATO has M1s and Challenger 2s.
As for the U.S. letting the Brit's make the Mustang 'better'. Again, it was about logistics. The Mustang needed a better engine and the Merlin was the best allied inline airplane engine that was already in production and which crews were already familiar with. Ford developed and was ready to produce a V-12 for the Mustang that walked all over the very good but aging Merlin. It wasn't produced because the Merlin was good enough and wouldn't interrupt logistics or require retraining/new tools.
Despite the hyperbole WWII was won with, and was always going to be won with, logisticial superiority. If I can put a lot more equipment and men on the battlefield than you can, and my equipment is more reliable, you will lose. German tanks were fearsome on paper, but if I have to pick a tank for my army I am not pciking the one that is difficult and expensive to build and so unreliable that it is almost never where it needs to be when it needs to be.
@MrCSXboy98 Your entire comment is nonsensical. Do you see what this video is about? Did you read my comment and understand it? You're somehow saying that the Sherman Firefly "HAD" armor by reading about the "Jumbo" version? And what the fuck is "But it isn't like they shot each other from 3 feet away." Jesus fucking Christ, are you drunk or what?
I understand that the US showed interest in the Firefly, though far too late in the war. One hundred or so chassis were sent to England for conversion, but finished after the war. The Firefly used an M4A4 chassis with the Chrysler A57 multi-bank engine. That engine had to be awful when it came to maintenance. The marriage of the 17 pounder to the M4A3's Ford GAA 8 cylinder would have been awesome, indeed. As to the greatest tank of WWII? Dunno, I wasn't there. Were you?
The Firefly frightened the life out of German tanks crews and the appearance of one guaranteed they were the first the german guns targetted. A former German tank commander said the 17pdr reminded him of the 88. Very few were trained to operate the Firefly properly but a first rate commander could use the gun to deadly effect. One perfect engagement saw a Firefly kill three Panthers and a Tiger mk 1.
Kohl423 1 week ago
@Kohl423 Still low armored.Also shoot the tank that can kill you.Its tactic
22tasos22 6 days ago
That was a good shot of the mess Wittmann left behind I suspect...
Yes, the Firefly wasn't aptly named...
The std 76mm Sherman would need to get a good side shot or hope for a turret jam shot, but it was a regular Sherman that took out Wittmann in his Tiger...from the rear left flank...
jordan390a 1 month ago
@jordan390a wow so many diferent storyes in discovery channel they say airplane tok wittmans tiger out
norwayitalo 22 hours ago
It is too bad out country would not produce the M-26 Pershing in 1943 like they were supposed too.
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
It was the same 90mm high velocity cannon that is on all m-26 Pershing's. And I have the proof of the kill. The modified Pershing had some more armor and thicker turret casting but other then that same tank. I have the statement of the declassified file. Would you like to see it?
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
The problem with the Tiger was that it took three times as long to build as any other German tank and the transmission broke all the time.
SvenTviking 1 month ago
If anyone would like to see it I will send it to your e-mail.
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
Yes at the end of the war a m26 Pershing shot a king tiger with one shot through the front and blew it's turret off! And yes it did happen if you do not believe me I have a written and verified statement from a prototype m-26 Pershing crew!
Brandonbigone87 1 month ago
@Brandonbigone87
Doubtfull as first this was not a pershing bu a highly modified "super pershing" and no it's not a fact as there have been problems with the dates given when the engagement took place not to mention that the german records all make it clear that there wasn't a schwere abteilung around for miles.
Dreachon 1 month ago
naa ich bin total naja wie soll ich sagen reich
AminaZoezc230 1 month ago
From the end of 1943, the Sherman the heavier German tanks (Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger, King Tiger, Hunting Tiger) in the battle clearly inferior, so under ideal conditions, even a single "Tiger" a Sherman-association could because of its superior firepower heavy losses inflict. The high production rate of the M4 and the adjusted relative to the German vehicles easy repair and maintenance of the qualitative difference by massive numerical superiority
sepp45529 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ab Ende 1943 war der Sherman den schwereren deutschen Panzern (Panther, Jagdpanther, Tiger, Königstiger, Jagdtiger) im Gefecht deutlich unterlegen; so konnte unter idealen Bedingungen selbst ein einzelner „Tiger“ einem Sherman-Verband aufgrund seiner überlegenen Feuerkraft schwere Verluste zufügen. Die hohe Produktionsrate des M4 sowie die im Vergleich zu den deutschen Fahrzeugen einfache Reparatur und Wartung glichen den qualitativen Unterschied durch massive quantitative Überlegenheit aus
sepp45529 1 month ago
people have got to realize that overall, the 17 pounder was the best Anti tank gun out during the war. its armor penetrating capabilities were much higher compared to the 88mm on the tiger and the 75mm on the panther. in fact, when it fired a sabot round, it had the ability to penetrate a king tigers armor as well. The sherman is looked down too much, as this gun proves even the worst tanks can become killers.
dearhboy 1 month ago
@dearhboy sherman itself was a beast tank the firefly was chuck norris
rucajuda 1 month ago
@rucajuda i know, it's a shame people do not really the full potential behind a sherman. It was a tank that can be customized to literally any role.
dearhboy 1 month ago
@dearhboy germans... i would defend my country too if i was german but come on hitler was a prostitute
rucajuda 1 month ago
@rucajuda Sherman was a beast tank ? Lol Firefly chuck norris ? Seriously dude check ur facts
22tasos22 1 month ago
@dearhboy Check your facts NO TANK EVER PENETRATER THE KING TIGERS FRONTAL ARMOR..NEVER. And no a tiger could easily destroy a firefly
22tasos22 1 month ago
@22tasos22 let me clarify so that you have a better understanding of what i meant. When the 17 pounder fired a sabot round, it had the capabilities to penetrate the kings tigers frontal armor. However, there are no combat records in which a firefly ever encountered a king tiger, but theoritcally it could've happened.
dearhboy 1 month ago
@dearhboy Sabot okay i surrender :) I play a game called Men Of War its full of realism and one thing i know..SABOT round =death (the tanks dont have health they take a hit either bounces off or get destroyed)
22tasos22 1 month ago
@22tasos22 Oh wanted to say that not knowledge and definitely not my answer came from the game :P
22tasos22 1 month ago
@22tasos22 real life is different...
rucajuda 1 month ago
@rucajuda True yet a tiger tank could destroy a sherman tank before the sherman tank even saw it coming i go ta video if ur interested
22tasos22 1 month ago
And yet the 88mm gun develloped years before was better. Muuuuuch better. german engineering. And no... I never heared of that Firefly. Must be pretty famous :D.
But I know things with the phrases: "Desert Rats", "27 Tanks", "killed by" "One Tiger", "Wittman" I believe you know that one do you?
Manni4life 1 month ago
@ rapitisioannis: So what? We're talking about the gun aren't we? So this gun was able to penetrate any allied tank at a distance of 3000 meters. If you insist putting the crew into this. Remember one thing: The German tank-crewman had a much higher viability and not only therefore much more training :)
Manni4life 1 month ago
@Manni4life After '44 the British had much better tank training especially in the build up to D-Day.
moleman9000 1 month ago
@moleman9000 Is that so? well fine. They had one year the better trained crew? How long did the war last? :D No fence dude. This gun stil penetrates at 3000 meters.
Manni4life 1 month ago
@Manni4life Well, Anyway if you'd read By Tank Into Normandy by Stuart Hills you'd know what one Firefly, used well, could do.
moleman9000 1 month ago
Well and he 88 mm gun the germans got on their tigers years before was able to penetrate ANY allied tank at a distance of 3000 meters. so. Not a real counter this 17 pounder, isnt it?
Manni4life 1 month ago
@Manni4life few crews,occasionaly and not for moving targets, those are statistic goals!
rapitisioannis 1 month ago
@Manni4life umm, yes? Because before the 17-pounder we had nothing that could do what it could! So obviously it was good. Ever hear of the British Firefly that took out 3 Tiger Tanks in one combat action? I'd love to hear of an M3, or an M4 Sherman, with the standard low velocity 76mm gun do that.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 1 month ago
Overall germany had probably 3 failures, not upgrading their tanks early enough, mixing high quality vehicles such as the Panther and Tiger 2 with obsolete Stug 3s and Panzer 4s, and 3 using too many experimental designs.
If the Panzer 4 had changed its turret with a bigger gun and sloped armor, it would have become a mini Panther.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket THey did try to fit a Panther turret with shutzen stand off armor to a Panzer IV but they realized the size weight of the gun meant the Panzer IV was beyond its limits to take such a big gun. The Allies also had problems fitting bigger guns to a SHerman and the CHurchill unfortunately. Also - it was also expensive to fund/research a brandnew gun and just install it straight away if one thinks economically as well.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
The Sherman was reliable and designed for ease of maintenence and repair. Not upgunning and uparmoring them was a real failure. Read about General Leslie MacNair who stopped the improvement of the M-4 in favor of the tank destroyers. Only an idiot would not realize that an M-10 and M-36 were still M-4's. The Sherman and T-34 wer war winners the Panthers were war losers. All they ever did was give a temporary tactical advantage which is not a gaurentee of winning battles let along campaigns.
scottduncan44 2 months ago
@scottduncan44 But they did up armor and upgun it. the base M4 sherman had around 50mm armor in a "lazy" slope and a 75mm, later they upgraded them with 76mm guns that could perform much better, and turned armor to about 60mm hard sloped.
The Panther's failure was simply because they mix high quality panthers, with increasingly low quality Panzer 4s, Stugs, etc.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
Panthers were great when they worked, when they had fuel and ammo when they got to the front. They had a serious problem with the transmission which if it failed was very difficult to repair.The western allies fought a stratigic war. They bombed German factories limiting production, they bombed railroads limiting transportation of tanks , fuel and ammo, they bombed the roads limiting movement . They attacked the tanks themselves. So of 6,000 Panthers How many actually reached the front lines.
scottduncan44 2 months ago
@scottduncan44 Panther against a T-34/85 or JS-2 is also interesting - if one dismisses the obvious weakness of the Russian tanks. The T-34/85 has numbers, 90mm armor, speed, ease of manufacter and a BIGGER 85mm gun that could do more HE damage. The Panther however has a better AP/AT gun, superior optics and experienced crews. The JS-2 is obvious - the huge 122mm gun will lay waste to anything - and could spall a tank if the shot is properly aimed.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@Gooseman2k2 yeah it was excellent, in Africa before M36s, Pershings, Fireflys, Achilles, and 76mm armed shermans arrived after normandy.
The Tiger was superior in 3 regards, armor, firepower, and range. However once a M36 or M26 pershing comes in, the Tiger 1 is the loser, costly double or triple.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket The Pershing should be measured against very very late war tanks... such as the Tiger 2... or the Panther F. In which case the Pershing was again... Woefully underpowered! The tiger 2 could bounce any gun the allies had from the front! And was never penetrated frontally in combat!
The Firefly is absolutely no match for the tiger in any way! Just that the firefly had a CHANCE to penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger past 100m
Gooseman2k2 2 months ago
@Gooseman2k2 Actually it was, The Sherman Firelfy is the ONE vehicle which had a confirmed kill on a Tiger 2.
Dont forget, the Sherman Firefly's gun was 76mm high velocity anti-tank gun, not really multi role. When is was additionally equipped with HVAP and APDS rounds, they tore through Tiger 1s, so did M26s and M36s.
The Firefly had a better gun than the Panther or Tiger on a smaller and cheaper frame=mass production. To a lesser degree the T-34/85 had the same treatment.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket The Mayfly Sherman's QF 17 Pounder was slightly superior to the Panther in AP but HE was an issue intially - some Allied tankmen even claimed that the basic Shermans 75mm gun was better in general HE performance than the QF 17 pounder due to the tendency towards a high velocity AT/AP work. The Bengal Tiger's KwK 43 > QF 17 pounder in AP/HE performance by natural. Also - the Tiger I's 88mm kwk 36 gun, whilst weaker in AP - remember the 17 pounder had some APDS accuracy issues
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket The Tiger I's KwK 36 would have superior accuracy/stability and also the fact that if it were in the long range shots. Furthermore the HE shot would be more damaging than the Mayfly 1c Sherman tank. Still the QF17 pounder gave German tank commanders a reality check - hence Mayfly Shermans were singled as priority targets. Now for T34/85? It is interesting to compare it to the Panther. The PaK 42 75mm gun was superior to the 85mm ZiS 53 in AP/AT and accuracy - BUT the ZiS 53 had a BI
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket The ZiS 53 naturally had a BIGGER caliber than the PaK 42 so it would be a more useful shot in HE in 1-1 - but the Soviet tank had poorer optics, poorer accuracy, limited radios and sometimes ammunition was a quality problem against the Panther or Tiger tanks for the matter.
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket
I agree with HeiroofGojira.
While the 17 pounder Firefly gun had great AP, it was notoriously not very accurate beyond 800 metres, had a lot of smoke discharge and the recoil was immense.
At Villers Bocage a Firefly supposedly fired at Wittmann's tank a few times at range and completely missed.
If the 17 pounder had been more accurate then maybe Michael Wittmann would have died that day.
I'd say the German 88 L/56 and the 75mm L/70 were superior overall to the 17 pounder.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@LaughingGravy31 You do know that it was a Canadian Firefly that killed Wittmann right?
Birdy890 2 months ago
@Birdy890 I was about to mention that. Tank Ace Michael Wittman in a Tiger 1 was killed by a Sherman Firefly. I dont even think they had APDS ammo yet. the 17 pounder guns were the only true counter to the Tiger 1 and Panther tanks at Normandy. When they were given APDS ammunition, they were even more effective, even if it was a relatively experimental ammunition.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
No Wittmann was unlikely to have been killed by a Firefly. The forward Tigers were ambushed on the flanks by Joe Ekins hidden Firefly at 700 yards but it is now thought that Wittmann's tank was actually knocked out by a much closer Canadian Sherman 75mm firing from the opposite side and hidden in the grounds of a chateau about 150 yard to Wittmann's left.
Recent analysis points to the killer shell penetrating Wittmann's Tiger's LEFT side, where the Canadians were firing.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
By the way guys (including Birdy8900) I was talking about FRONTAL PENETRATIONS of the Tiger I at VERY long ranges (i.e 1,000 yards and more). There are no recorded cases of a Firefly or a Pershing or a M36 frontally penetrating a Tiger I at very long distances.
Wittmann and his other Tigers were knocked out by ambushed flanking shots and even a Sherman 75mm could do that at close range.
I was talking about FRONTAL PENETRATIONS.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
The APDS ammo for the Firefly was badly inaccurate at long ranges and though it could penetrate more armour it actually did less damage inside the penetrated tank than regular AP ammo.
The Firefly 17 pounder was not very accurate over 800 metres whereas the Tiger's 88mm L/56 still made hits at 2,000 and even 3,000 metres.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
The APDS ammo for the Firefly was badly inaccurate at long ranges and though it could penetrate more armour it actually did less damage inside the penetrated tank than regular AP ammo.
The Firefly 17 pounder was not very accurate over 800 metres whereas the Tiger's 88mm L/56 still made hits at 2,000 and even 3,000 metres.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
@ChaosTicket
The APDS ammo for the Firefly was badly inaccurate at long ranges and though it could penetrate more armour it actually did less damage inside the penetrated tank than regular AP ammo.
The Firefly 17 pounder was not very accurate over 800 metres whereas the Tiger's 88mm L/56 still made hits at 2,000 and even 3,000 metres.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
Please cite just ONE bona fide proven case of a Firefly, Pershing or M36 taking out a Tiger I frontally at long range and cite the Tiger unit, location and date.
I'm pretty sure you are not going to find anything.
There were very few Tigers in NW Europe by the time the M36 and Pershing entered combat.
Only 1 Pershing ever knocked out a Tiger I but it was at close range and a Tiger I also knocked out a Pershing so they finished the score at 1-1 by the end of the war.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket
APDS wasn't delivered to firefly until somewere in august 1944 I think.
But for combatting the Tiger even it's standerd APCBC was more than capable of penetrating the Tiger front at 1000m.
Dreachon 1 month ago
Comment removed
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Birdy890
""You do know that it was a Canadian Firefly that killed Wittmann right?""
No it wasn't. It was likely a Canadian Sherman 75mm firing at Wittmann's left flank at a relatively short distance, about 150 yards or less.
The only Firefly in the area was British and the gunner was Joe Ekins. Again it was flank shots that did the other Tigers. Flank shots on the RIGHT side, from a hidden orchard at around 700 yards.
Wittmann's tank was the most rear Tiger and closer to the Canadians.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaosTicket
"When is was additionally equipped with HVAP and APDS rounds, they tore through Tiger 1s, so did M26s and M36s."
I've not yet come across one bona fide proven case where a Firely or M36 or Pershing knocked out a Tiger I at very long range, especially frontally.
At closer ranges on the flank even a Sherman 75 had been known to KO a Tiger so for all the 17 pounder's technical ability on paper there are no records of Fireflys or M36 or Pershing KO a Tiger frontally from very far.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket
Even the new Comets couldn't knock out a Tiger I frontally when the new Comets of 3rd Royal Tank Regiment duelled with a Tiger I in April 1945.
Instead it took a flank shot from just 60 metres for the Comet to knock out a Tiger I.
Frontally the Comets weren't having any success against this Tiger I (although the Tiger knocked out some Comets).
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
@Gooseman2k2 If using APDS shot - it could theoretically have a chance to knock a Bengal Tiger - but APDS had ammo quality issues, poor accuracy compared to standard APCR shots and also was a solid shot rather than dealing much HE damage. The Bengal Tiger's armor was extremely formidable - 150mm sloped - unlike the flawed Kubinka tests staged - where 'the armor seams cracked due to poor workmanship!' What about the JS-2 tank?
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket The Tiger I could still nail an M36 Jackson without trouble though - given the Jackson didn't exactly rely on thick armor - relying more on the M3 90mm and speed. THe JS-2 could also be a bigger challenge to a Tiger I in a 1 - 1 fight at long range - Korsun Shekensovsky showed despite being eventually nailed by the Tiger I's and Panzer IV's the JS-2 at 2000 yards could withstand a Tiger I's 88mm KwK 36 until 1100 yards. NOte - these JS-2's were early 1943 models with shot traps
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 No the M36 was pretty much a counter to the Tiger 1. The m10 wolverine wasnt much better than the M4 sherman, the M36 was a major up armor and upgunning of the Wolverine.
The M36 was in some ways better, as its armor was sloped, it was much smaller, and easier to make.
The m36 and M26 pershing were overall ment to be counters to the heavier german tanks such as the Tiger 1. They were successful in that, but not so much the much heavier ones such as the Tiger 2.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket But was its armor capable of withstanding a Tiger I's 88mm KwK at long range? Given it was small and light - and sloped don't mean its will always withstand all shots - take the JS-2 tanks - they could withstand a Tiger I's shot but they weren't 100% immune to the shot at 1100 ranges. However yes the Jackson was a quantum leap in WWII for the Americans to have some firepower to knock the Tiger I and Panther - I won't disagree in that. Its the armor part I'm not convinced -
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket What about T-34/85 vs Panther tanks - say Ausf A/G - the Soviet tank was faster, lighter, cheaper and had 90mm armor - with a bigger gun that could deal a bigger HE shell than the Panther. But the Panther was said to have superior optics and the PaK 42 could still have better AP/AT capabilities over the T-34/85 - one force of Panther/Tigers destroyed a bigger force of T-34/85 and JS-2's at a battle in May '44
HeirofGojira91 2 months ago
@HeirofGojira91 If you wanna debate this more, do it in private.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket
Keep in mind that the M36 didn't see combat until late 1944 and the Pershing not until early 1945 while the Tiger I was in combat in autumn 1942 so they should have been a counter considering they were 2 years behind in development. I don't think that is anything to be proud of. It is to be expected.
Mind you, the M36 and Pershing rarely encountered the Tiger I as very few Tiger Is were in the west in late '44/early '45.Just 2 units in NW Europe.More King Tigers were encountered.
LaughingGravy31 2 months ago
More than that, the 17 pounder was designed specifically as an anti-tank gun, compared to the 75mm US gun which was general purpose.
The US did eventually have the M26 Pershing, M36 Jackson, and upgunned the M4 shermans, but the Firefly was before all those came to be.
The Tiger wasnt excellent, but with a long range, high accuracy gun that would kill the sherman in 1 shot, compared to the shermans which needed to rush to close range, in numbers, and focus on the sides and rear.
ChaosTicket 2 months ago
@ChaosTicket weapons are measured by what they are up against...
The Tiger is an EXCELLENT tank... armor, firepower, visibility, and FEAR FACTOR! Yea it had major major flaws... but compared to it's contemporaries... the T-34 and the Sherman... it was so vastly superior it was ludicrous!
Gooseman2k2 2 months ago
no a pathetic tank that threatens a relatively small area with its gun...the Sherman's superior tracks and numbers extend the threatened area by hundreds of miles...also can literally turn 180 degrees and march to the fighting as Patton did with his tanks...thats the whole "be all" of tank warfare, get thar firstus with the mostus as Forrest said ....where most Shermans were, there usually were no Panthers...
crpdst2003 2 months ago
hahahah patetic, how a sherman kill a panther.
is like a T-34 kill King Tiger 2
0puest0 2 months ago
@0puest0 Study history, more often then not, 5 to 1 ratio, and to boot, the US used an extremely mobile dedicated TD division. the M10 GMC had a kill ratio of 10 to 1 in armor combat, most losses being racked by landmine and anti-armour infantry. The short 75 was adequate and even excelled against it's designated target, the PZK IV. but the panther, a tank exceeding the sherman's tonnage by 20 ton, was a cumlated research that made the first basic MBT.
phantomkitsunezero 2 months ago
@phantomkitsunezero .
u need study history mate.
how is posible a Sherman kill a Panther or Tiger.
the wehrmacht`s tanks is patetic.
0puest0 2 months ago
@0puest0 Simple matters of ballistics. Then variation of conditions. The 76 mm Ordinance 17 pounder used good ammunition and if I recall could penetrate about 140 or so mm of steel. And because this was the first war of true tank to tank combat, one can hardly say any tank was pathetic, early designs hardly pan out first time out.
phantomkitsunezero 2 months ago
@0puest0 ye like a tiger destroying a lot of t 34 and shermans kv-1 2 Michael Wittmann otto carius
argikna 2 months ago
At West Point Museum there is a Sherman tank out in front of the parking lot. The front hull on the tank clearly has a several inch plate welded to it and the gun is definitely an update with a 76mm gun.
schizoidboy 2 months ago
the panther was a good tank but it had a weak transmisson but the 76mm guns of the sherman could penatrate the side armor. the british offered thier 17 pounder gun to american forces but turned it down do to pride but the 90mm was excellent when it came into service.
seoulkidd1 2 months ago
South of Buron, a counterattack by Panzer IV and Panther tanks of the 12th SS Panzer Regiment was defeated by M10 Achilles (cousin of the Firefly) self-propelled anti-tank guns and 17-pounder anti tank guns of 245th Battery, 62nd Antitank Regiment. Thirteen German tanks were destroyed in one of the most successful antitank engagements of the campaign, for the loss of four tank destroyers and a further four damaged”. Not bad.
Susseditout 2 months ago
Always amuses me a little whwn folks say that superior German tanks lost because they were too hard/complicated/slow to build - it's true, of course, but if they had (hypothetically) built lots and lots more somewhat lower quality tanks more on a par with the allies instead they still wouldn't have been able to produce enough and their tanks still would have lost - only they would have lost more of them.
Twirlyhead 3 months ago
I learned something today :)
ProPorchMonkey 3 months ago
Firefly was no more than a simple modified Sherman. The GF-17 pounder was horrible at HE. Shermans with 76mm guns apparently go, to this day, unrecognised. If only historians in England, and the U.S (Dumbest of all), even learned of the existence of these tanks.
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 I take it you refer all US Historians as (Dumb) Interesting, Im not going to call anyone names, as it shows a lack of respect and maturity. Centurian was a great tank but not even close to production for WWII. November of 1946 it actually entered service officially with the 5th RTR. Sherman Firefly, great Bandaid for what it was, however it was 1mph slower then the Panzer MK IV and the Panther was capable of 35mph, which they later limited to 29mph to save on the transmissions.
JuergenGDB 3 months ago
One of the main reasons Germany lost the war was because there tanks were to difficult to mass produce take the tiger for example one of the best tanks in the war but only about 1500 were ever built
gigittyguy97 3 months ago
German tanks where obviously the better tank, but the deciding factor in which
germany lost the war is AIRPOWER. Without aircover this Tiger,Panther and
panzer IV are sitting ducks.
Sparty1234561 3 months ago
@Sparty1234561 Sherman with HVSS, a 76mm M1 would rape a panther or even the tiger anyday. Tiger was a slow, fragile, vulnerable, wasteful piece of junk. The Panther was no more than teething problems on a terrible design. Good armor and firepower? Yes. Good tank? Nope. Shermans defeated Panthers at over 1,400 meters, and at times, even 1,600. Fact: Most "duels" with tanks in Europe happened with infantry.
Tyco200 3 months ago
Just imagine how different the war in Europe would have been had they fitted every Sherman with a 17 pdr from the start...
xCh34pShOtx 3 months ago
its well proven in Korea that Churchill tank was best mountain climber of all tanks....it could go where NKorean russian tanks couldn't......
crpdst2003 4 months ago 2
@crpdst2003 wel...they didnt have to, so why build a hillclimber?!
StylexStyler 3 months ago
@StylexStyler the Churchill tank was not built to be a hillclimber it was just it was very good at that,also in the Korean war the terrain meant that tanks needed to be able to cope with mountainous terrain.
TheLloydA1 3 months ago
@crpdst2003 And the best tank to tank tank then was either the Centurion (A Juggernaut), or the Sherman M4A3E8, which raped the T-34-85 in every encounter. Let's not forget the major differences between soviet pig-sty junk and American wolves! T-34-85 has ammunition exposed, horrible optics, bad transmission problems, cheap and very thin frontal armor, horrible compartments for its crew and a bad gun, which was beaten even by the Panzer IV's 75mm PaK-40.
Tyco200 3 months ago
@Tyco200 I agree with you here the T-34 was a nightmare, transmission, crappy optics and crew conditions. The 85mm was not comparable to the Panther at all. The Centurion I would not use as a comparable source as it did not see combat in WWII and would have to wait till the Korean War I beleive. While the Panther II, and King Tigers would have seen another update had the war swayed differently I think. The Germans were already planning more HP to the Tigers, and streamlining production.
JuergenGDB 3 months ago
@crpdst2003 Let's also not forget that Shermans had ammunition storage, 68mms of slopped protection by then, outstanding speed, well done compartments (Despite a high profile/box shape), good suspension, excellent main gun and very good optics.
Tyco200 3 months ago
Both British and Yank heavy armor was held up in development by stupid commands at the top level.
Oso1G 4 months ago
IMO - This was the ONLY useful tank destroyer the western allies had for the bulk of the war. I reckon the T35/85 and Russian tanks were way better than the lion's share of western allied tanks. The 17 pounder was a great piece of kit. We should have had them in the million. Then we could have kicked more ass. Mind you back then the Germans were better trained, a 'natural' army - put that down to the 'Prussian' mentality.
Juicingood 4 months ago
@Juicingood But what about the M36 Gun Motor Carriage better known as the Jackson Tank destroyer? If firing HVAP from the 90mm M3 gun it could also do well plus it was lighter than most German tanks so it had a maneuvering advantage depending on crew skill. The British also mounted the 17 pounder into thier 'Achilles' version of the M10 tank destroyer :) The Russians too had the SU-100, ISU-152 and IS-2m tanks. Still the Panther could still punch a Sherman Mayfly without too much trouble.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@Juicingood How does a Panther compare to say an IS-2? You mentioned the Russian tanks being way better than the lion's share of Western Allied tanks. But Russian tanks were criticized for cramped conditions, poor optics and non-user friendly ergonomics though they were 'cheaper' than say a German tank. Indeed the 17 pounder was amongst the best Allied AT-guns used, only the PaK 43 was superior to it when firing Tungsten Shells as the APDS of the 17 pounder wasn't exactly the best in accuracy.
HeirofGojira91 4 months ago
@Juicingood It wasn't the only one the British also had modified M10's called Achilles and Archer tank destroyer both armed with the same 17 pounder as the Firefly, Also in the closing stages of the War they had a few Comet tanks.
newhoped 4 months ago
everybody always forgets that the russian done a lot to defeat the nazis with the eastern front. if it wasnt for them we wouldnt have pushed the germans back from france. fact.
jujitsuman68 4 months ago 2
@jujitsuman68 We would of, but it has been estimated it could of tanken between an extra 12-18 months. But this doesn't include if another offensive was opened up through Italy. Which should of been done anyway, would of crushed the Axis a lot quicker.
Sonnypjim09 4 months ago
@Sonnypjim09 there was alot going on but it worked out ok in the end.
jujitsuman68 4 months ago
@jujitsuman everybody forgets that big improvment in soviets tatics owed alot more to the radio sets provided by the allies than their tanks.....German radios sets did much to keep Mk III and IV's edge aganist soviet armor until Tiger and MK IV specials arrived....
crpdst2003 3 months ago
@crpdst2003 thats a different debate mate, the russians pushed the germans back with heavy artillery and ariel bombardment. and lets not forget thousands upon thousands of tanks. but good call.
jujitsuman68 3 months ago
Sherman Firefly Tank restored in Poland sept 29, 2011 as a only one in working condition
PolishAmericanDC 4 months ago
If you guys like tanks, look up the game:
World Of Tanks. They have the MAUS!!
darkstars101 4 months ago
2:44-2:48 - that is one fast, big powerful German cat on tracks! With armor and a poten gun indeed :D Who could imagine how the Jagdpanther would fare if it was compared with the M3 Grant-Lee tank?!
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
Btw everyone, The pershing was called a heavy tank for morale reasons, It was changed back to a medium in the korea war
captaindyllanrexs 5 months ago
and how was our 90 inferior to there 88? The only redemeing quality of the 88 is that it ha more shell options. Thats it.............
MegaProjectpat 5 months ago
pershings weren't introduced till the last few months of the war and was frankly one of the best tanks of the war out classing several german tanks by far. It was modeled almost bolt for bolt from the t-34 in that it had sloped armour, a large gun was easy to work on its design was engineered with taking it apart in mind.
MegaProjectpat 5 months ago
german heavy armor was the mistake the germans made, tiger, king tiger ..... where big and heavy to heavy nr 1 in firepower but in little towns these things could not manuvre like a sherman, if I get to choose, big heavy and slow, and not in great numbers, or smaller faster and in great numbers, I would go for the 2nd, dont get me wrong the sherman was far from a A+ tank but with the help from artillery and air support these things won the war
browningcal30 5 months ago
@Berserkergeng Sorry, thats not true. If you check the stats, only 5-10% of all german tanks were destroyed by allied planes.
Most tanks were destroyed by tank destroyers and AT-Guns.
DarkScipio 6 months ago
@Berserkergeng the pershing tank did pretty well at the end of the war
FutureMarine246 6 months ago
@FutureMarine246 The tank still had teething problems, and since there were only 20 in combat, with no real combat except for about 6 actual actions with the enemy, and having 2 Pershings knocked out, eventually repaired its difficult at best to get an idea of how well they actually performed since all the combat took place on average of 500m at best. The tank was quickl;y replaced by the M46 Patton.
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB oh, did not know that lol thanks
FutureMarine246 5 months ago
@FutureMarine246 LOL The crazy thing is the Pershing was for its size and weight a Medium tank for the time, and I know you already knew that.. LOL Anyways They had great Armor and if they had mass produced the Super Pershing they may not have been so scared of the Soviets during the peace talks etc at the end of the War, maybe... LOL After all the Allies really only had the Firefly and numerous 76mm Shermans vs Soviet JSII and at the end JSIII to contend with. Yikes!!
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FutureMarine246 LOL The crazy thing is the Pershing was for its size and weight a Medium tank for the time, and I know you already knew that.. LOL Anyways They had great Armor and if they had mass produced the Super Pershing they may not have been so scared of the Soviets during the peace talks etc at the end of the War, maybe... LOL After all the Allies really only had the Firefly and numerous 76mm Shermans vs Soviet JSII and at the end JSIII to contend with. Yikes!!
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
@FutureMarine246 LOL The crazy thing is the Pershing was for its size and weight a Medium tank for the time, and I know you already knew that.. LOL Anyways They had great Armor and if they had mass produced the Super Pershing they may not have been so scared of the Soviets during the peace talks etc at the end of the War, maybe... LOL After all the Allies really only had the Firefly and numerous 76mm Shermans vs Soviet JS2 and at the end JS3 to contend with. Yikes!!
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB yea but the American philosophy is different, or it was back then. We used tanks to support infantry, and we used tank killers and artillery but mostly air power to kill enemy tanks.
FutureMarine246 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB Pershing's 90 was also on the M-48s. ;) And they killed T-54/55s easily, like the pigs those things were! Haha, and let's not forget the junk named "T-62!" Shermans armed with 76mm armed modified Panther guns of France killed T-54/55 and 62s at 2,400 meters with HEAT ROUNDS. We didn't need anything practically new.
Tyco200 5 months ago
@TheMadMontage russian T 34s were stronger that fireflys
SLYR237 6 months ago
@SLYR237 in which way? The firefly's main gun fired a better AP round than the T-34s 76 or 85mm gun. The only way the T-34 would have been better is in the support roll with HE shells.
MadMilitiaMen 6 months ago
@MadMilitiaMen t-34 were 88mm
SLYR237 6 months ago
@SLYR237 Might want to recheck that mate. The T-34 used a 76mm then a 85mm gun. The Germans utilized the 88mm gun.
MadMilitiaMen 6 months ago
@SLYR237 no: madmilitiamen is right
Taconiteable 5 months ago
@TheMadMontage And the pershing.
captaindyllanrexs 6 months ago
@captaindyllanrexs you mean the tank that struggled to peenetrate the panther? the panthers 75mm gun fired AT rounds more effectively than the Pershings 90mm did
27thlegion 5 months ago
@27thlegion I doubt that a tank that was designed to take out the panther had trouble penatrating it.
captaindyllanrexs 5 months ago
@captaindyllanrexs it did... its gun was poorly made for the AT role... and outside 500m without special rounds no allied ank could penetrate the front armour of the panther only the front mantlet on the turret. the sherman could not ever penetrate the panthers armour at any range. and even after they improved the 90mm gun it was inferior to the German 88mm gun
27thlegion 5 months ago
@27thlegion The 90mm L73 gun mounted on the M26 super pershing variant was on par with the famed 88mm L71 German design. In fact it could penetrate the frontal armor of the panther tank at some 2600 yards. It did not go into full production however.
I will certainly agree with you about superior German tank gun/anti tank gun performance. Best in World War 2.
Oso1G 5 months ago
@27thlegion Actully the Pershing did manage to kill a panther by shooting its front hull and using only standard AP rounds
captaindyllanrexs 5 months ago
@captaindyllanrexs You are correct and big deal. This was done at close quarters so even a Russian 76mm probably would have pentrated, or pretty much any tank at the distances they were fighting from. What you should be asking is could the Panther have penetrated the front of the Pershing at those distances. I beleive they were well within 500-600m.
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB A Colt 45 couldve penatrated any allied tank, but atleast we had better tanks then japan. :l
captaindyllanrexs 5 months ago
@captaindyllanrexs Very true, Japanese tanks were pretty much renditions of the French Ft-17, Vickers 6ton and their Loyd carriers, however I believe after the Tri-Partie...treaty the tanks took on somewhat of a chechzlovakia look, at least with the turret. Their Docterine was pretty much of support, and light weight because of the rainforest terrain. Later they had some medium tanks, but again really no match for the good old USA!
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB Hell yes, and remember the beautiful Shermans! 76mm guns killed those Panthers (Unreliable not-so-effective tanks) at 1,200-1,600 meters. Yet, the British, who bitch about their own ammo-exposed Shermans give misleading bullshit about the Sherman. T-34 also had its ammunition exposed, poor frontal armor (45 mms sloped could be pierced by Stug IIIs/IVs, PzIVs, early PzIVs at close range.) and is overly biased. T-34 = shit boar. Sherman = Wolf of God!
Tyco200 5 months ago
@Tyco200 O come on.. Get real. You cant do shit against a panther at those longe ranges. Not in a normal Sherman at least.
Ranokian 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB Actually we did have 1 tank that atleast had some armor on it, The sherman jumbo, Sloped 101mm on the front, and a 76mm that could penatrate the panthers front gun mantlet, but thats all.
captaindyllanrexs 5 months ago
@captaindyllanrexs There was also the M36 Jackson Gun Motor Carriage Self-Propelled Tank Destroyer with the M3 90mm gun! :D True it was not strictly a tank nor a Sherman but apparently it gave a good account of it self against the German tanks - as well as the fact American anti-tank crews using the M36 usually had a better survival rate compared to the towed American Anti-tank gun crews using the troubled M5 Anti-tank guns :(
HeirofGojira91 5 months ago
@captaindyllanrexs True... The Jumbo was a good tank for the Allies. had better Armor then the Tiger I. The M4A3E2 or the Jumbo would be fitted with the 76mm towards the end of 1944. However only about 254 were ever produced.... the E2 means Experimental... I think. More Savvy on German Armor, but the US had high hopes for the up and coming Pershing.
JuergenGDB 5 months ago
@JuergenGDB yeah better than the tiger I :D (wondering from which side btw) Jumbo had thick front armour because it was to be a battering-ram. It was not made in order to fight tanks (because of height and thin tracks western allied tanks were lousy in the at least slightly muddy terrain), but defence points. Followed by the infantry. Only after ww2 western allies learnt how to use tanks properly...
Shchetchynianin 4 months ago
@Shchetchynianin It was the frontal armor of the jumbo.. the turret was an upgraded turret but the side hull shot was still vulnerable... it was however to be used as a assualt tank like you said, I dont think it was until the cold war that tactics really changed 70-80's when europe feared the massive soviet armor blitz. Cheers!
JuergenGDB 4 months ago
@JuergenGDB I think, that they learnt something from German and soviet blitz from german commanders kept in captive (if Werner von Braun could be a director of NASA precedessor...). The 70's & 80's gave the Western states finally tanks at least comparable to Soviet (still from WW2 US & UK were more after aerial anti-tank approach, because of their far inferiority to German ones...) which could smash the red tide...
Shchetchynianin 4 months ago
@Shchetchynianin Yeah, I knew this chap, he was the Father of one of my friends and he served in Germany in the early 70's to about 78, and he basically was not so certain that NATO would have stopped the USSR if they decided to take all of Germany and keep going. The Leopard was pretty much the mainstay for Europe which I think if proven during that time would have done well.. US had the M60 which was huge, and the Abrams did not show up in Europe till about Late 1980. I miss those old games.
JuergenGDB 4 months ago
@JuergenGDB the NATO claimed, that they were capable of stopping red tide by the suburbs of Paris or so...
Shchetchynianin 4 months ago
@Shchetchynianin Well I am almost certain that is a little to close for most residents. Belgium, Netherlands, of Course Germany had the Leopard 1, US had the M60A3... but I think it was a question of numbers... just like Germany before its tech vs quantity, however im not so sure the tech in the 70's was far off from each other.
JuergenGDB 4 months ago
@JuergenGDB that's true, 70's were the time when Western Allies started prevailing with the hi-tec - but not the numbers: this was domain of Soviet block (i.e. amount of Polish-produced t-55 (1964-81) was more than 5 000 - same in Czech Republic)...
Shchetchynianin 4 months ago
@Shchetchynianin LOL, yeah if there was ever a time that the soviets should have invaded, it would have been then. Now, I would say that tech makes the difference, although Soviet docterine I believe is still Hammer and Anvil... Lots of Artillery and Armor backed by Mech troops. I think that Western forces would have a slight advantage in the air...and as we have learned, he who controls airspace, controls the battle space... anyways we have got off topic from the video post.. :) lol
JuergenGDB 4 months ago
@TheMadMontage Don't forget about tank destroyers...
My49ers4life 6 months ago
Superior german armor.
carolus84 6 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Yes they were, u crzy fool
2012datefordiary 7 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan What?! yes they were, get your facts right.
sergionuno 7 months ago
@DukoOsshiiKhan Um, yes actually they were.........
My49ers4life 7 months ago 2
Montgomery was such an arrogant prick!......as big a primadonna as Patton. Montgomery could say "the German Panzer threat was overblown and Allied tanks were up to the task respected of them"........ only because he didn't have to climb into one of the damn things. That's the sort of mentality that prevailed on both sides of the Atlantic, that resulted in many an Allied tanker being killed in inferior and inadequate equipment. Luckily today NATO has M1s and Challenger 2s.
Lex5576 8 months ago
As for the U.S. letting the Brit's make the Mustang 'better'. Again, it was about logistics. The Mustang needed a better engine and the Merlin was the best allied inline airplane engine that was already in production and which crews were already familiar with. Ford developed and was ready to produce a V-12 for the Mustang that walked all over the very good but aging Merlin. It wasn't produced because the Merlin was good enough and wouldn't interrupt logistics or require retraining/new tools.
1978BHO 8 months ago
Despite the hyperbole WWII was won with, and was always going to be won with, logisticial superiority. If I can put a lot more equipment and men on the battlefield than you can, and my equipment is more reliable, you will lose. German tanks were fearsome on paper, but if I have to pick a tank for my army I am not pciking the one that is difficult and expensive to build and so unreliable that it is almost never where it needs to be when it needs to be.
1978BHO 8 months ago
He said the Firefly was unique until the end of WW2 in taking on German tanks. The Comet was fitted with the same gun, as was the later Centurion.
NearAbbeyRoad 8 months ago
@NearAbbeyRoad As was the Commonwealth Archer and Achilles Tank Destroyers
oberstwake 8 months ago
der sherman ein schrottkübel,leicht zu knacken.wiefiele hitlerjungen haben ihn via panzerfaust auf den gewissen
vondertann61 9 months ago
The Sherman was so weakly armored you might as well have mounted that BRITISH 17-pounder on the back of a flatbed truck and drove it around.
Rooster1Cogburn 9 months ago
@Rooster1Cogburn Well in your case it's true that ignorance is bliss I guess...
My49ers4life 9 months ago
@My49ers4life Absolutely agree, I am ignorant about what your stupid ugly ass face looks like and I sure the hell am grateful for that.
Rooster1Cogburn 9 months ago
@Rooster1Cogburn it HAD armor (read m4 jumbo)
But it isn't like they shot each other from 3 feet away.
MrCSXboy98 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCSXboy98 Your entire comment is nonsensical. Do you see what this video is about? Did you read my comment and understand it? You're somehow saying that the Sherman Firefly "HAD" armor by reading about the "Jumbo" version? And what the fuck is "But it isn't like they shot each other from 3 feet away." Jesus fucking Christ, are you drunk or what?
Rooster1Cogburn 9 months ago
@MrCSXboy98 m4 jumbo was a different tank dude
SRNF 8 months ago
@SRNF he said, "the SHERMAN"
he wasn't being specific.
and yes ik it was different.
Sherman VC and sherman e2.
MrCSXboy98 8 months ago
@MrCSXboy98 lol jeez no need to get tech on me its ok to call em by the nicknames :P
SRNF 8 months ago
I understand that the US showed interest in the Firefly, though far too late in the war. One hundred or so chassis were sent to England for conversion, but finished after the war. The Firefly used an M4A4 chassis with the Chrysler A57 multi-bank engine. That engine had to be awful when it came to maintenance. The marriage of the 17 pounder to the M4A3's Ford GAA 8 cylinder would have been awesome, indeed. As to the greatest tank of WWII? Dunno, I wasn't there. Were you?
<