FWIW, my Dad's older brother Uncle Cliff[ord] was a commander in one of these, he survived the war, and lived to be 99, and a few weeks short of his 100th - Dad also survived the war [Royal Army Medical Corps] and lived to be 97.
Ironically, horsepower is essentially a useless measurement for tanks... what really matters, is torque. You need a lot of torque to move a lot of weight, which is what made the Chrysler engine in this tank beneficial. It was a lot heavier, and even had less horsepower than the Ford, but it had far more torque, and because of that, got to speed faster, could move up inclines faster, etc.
I always wondered why they didn't put diesel engines in WW2 tanks. One would think that since diesels are torque monsters, they would be the optimal choice for moving a heavy vehicle. Nope! Petrol. There must be a reason.
@@leeham6230 Basically inertia. If all your machines run on petrol, you only have to supply one type of fuel to all of your divisions. If some of your vehicles run on diesel and some on petrol, you'll have to send different proportions of diesel and petrol to your different units based on what exact combination of vehicles that specific unit is currently using. A supply nightmare. And you run the risk of some yahoo putting diesel in a petrol vehicle (or vice versa).
*British Production Office 1943* Engineer: Sir the 17 pounder won't fit! Winston Churchill: Put it in sideways! Engineer: The radio won't fit! Winston Churchill: Cut a hole in the back of the turret and let it stick out the back! Engineer: The engine's no good! Winston Churchill: Get 5 car engines and put 'em together!
I know this isn't the greatest tank in the world and that the 76mm armed Sherman supercedes it. But I don't love weapons because they're the best weapons. I love weapons when they come out with barking shit like this. 5 engines and a turret bodged with gaffer tape. _salutes_ Here's to you, you absolute mad lads.
I do believe the Australians had completed a successful installation of a 17 pounder into a Sherman over a year before the British and their efforts were “reported” to the British, hence the “official” work for the Firefly.
@@larshenrik8900 actually yes there is. the Sherman Firefly was perhaps the most valued tank by British and Commonwealth commanders, as it was the only tank in the British Army able to reliably penetrate the frontal armour of Panthers and Tigers at the standard combat ranges in Normandy. This fact did not go unnoticed by the Germans, who realised that these long-barrel Shermans posed a much greater threat to their heavy tanks than the normal Shermans, and German tank crews and anti-tank gun crews were instructed to eliminate Fireflies first. Similarly, the Firefly crews realised that the distinctive long barrel of their 17-pounder gun made the Firefly stand out from standard Shermans, so crews attempted to disguise their tanks to reduce the likelihood of being targeted. Some crews had the front half of the olive drab gun barrel painted white on the bottom, or white with dark green on top, to give the illusion of a shorter gun barrel. Another suggestion was for a shorter wooden dummy gun to be mounted on the rear of the turret and point forward; however, this tactic does not appear to have been used in combat.
17 pdr was 76mm, while the regular Sherman's gun was 75mm. I always wondered what made the 17pdr so special. The 75mm is about 2000 feet per second, and the 17pdr is a whopping 4000 fps. Its like 32 auto, and 30-06.
The gun cannons barrels; the Sherman 75mm wasn't obviously designed to be an AT gun cannon whereas the QF17 gun cannon was developed by the British after lessons learnt in the earlier stages of WWII BUT also when before the war too the British too realized that future tanks and AFV's would have new technology and armor and hence the 2 pdr or the 6 pdr even would not always fit the bill hence the QF 17 pdr gun cannon was developed - some of the QF 17 pdr were put on the 25 pdr carriages (due to production schedules and deadlines they didn't have time to properally install some of the earlier QF 17 pdr gun canons) hence the early QF 17 pdr gun cannons were called the QF 17 PHEASANTS .... and apparently there were used in North Africa .... But don't forget the QF 17 pdr is 76.2 mm x 55 Calibres = just under 4 meters if not 3.6 meters in length. The Sherman 75 was only 75mm x 40 Calibres = only about 3 meters ... so less velocity. ALTHOUGH the 75mm HE punch of the Sherman would have been SUPERIOR to the QF 17 pdr as the QF 17 pdr had a high velocity and needed BIG propellant charge and thick casing to enable the high performance of the gun AND the fact the QF 17 pdr did have a big recoil and night blindness flash from the powder and firing to the crews AND the fact the Sherman 75mm was 0.68 kg in HE filler - the QF 17 pdr gun cannon at best wasn't even 0.6 kg in HE punch - whilst both can get the job done - the fact the 75mm HE punch is obviously more useful and dangerous and does more splash in its damage for sure. Though no doubt the QF 17 pdr wins out in AP punch.
Foom-zilla ゴジラ They cured the smaller bursting charge problem by putting less propellant in the HE cases, lowering the velocity, which meant they could use thinner walled shells so the burst charge could be larger. The Yanks never thought of that with their 76mm.
@@SvenTviking well putting fewer powder means different ballistic which means you have to get different "lines" on the sight that leads to slower aiming time due to time taken to adjust aiming which is why the US doesnt want to do it with the 76 atleast from my point of view
I don't play WOT anymore (not much time where life is going) but I sure do enjoy these videos. Very detailed, understandable with some humor thrown in to keep things interesting. Keep up the great work! :-)
I agree completely! No knock on the games, just no time unfortunately. But I do have time to occasionally check out these videos, which are top notch. :-)
France 1944: Shoemaker Gunner in Firefly with no combat experience vs 3 Tigers one of which is the Black Ace with 131 confirmed kills... GUESS WHO WINS😂
Jean-Luc Martel Wittman was killed by a Sherman of the Canadian Sherbrooke Fusiliers. Recent analysis of the action, the position of Wittmann’s Tiger and damage to the tank from photographs of the wreck proves it was the Canadians that got him. Ekins did kill three Tigers in one action though.
Read a book by David Render, who was a commander of Shermans in the war. He hated the multi-bank engine. iirc he thought they had a tendency to flood because not all the engines were the right way up. He had got used to the diesel engined variant, which pulled more strongly.
Swedes tested after the war Firefly comparing it to Panther and found Firefly poor in hilly, forest landscape, passing ditches/trenches etc.... and one of the reason was its extra weight compared to American Sherman mainstream versions.
Its so sad that in the game for some players its bad but in real life its a monster and truly feared too maybe thats why they painted the end of the gun
Omg iw been ther and seen that sherman with my own eyes in the Arsenal tank museum in sweden. Hade a great time going around and seing all the tanks manely the sherman and T34 if your ever thinking about going go. I know its not bowington but it defenetly wont dissapoint you many swedish tanks from the 30s-80s and many early tanks from WW1 and a bunsh of german WW2 tanks
.. though as he pointed out in the video, it ended up being the most reliable of all the Sherman engine types after the Brits and Chrysler got together to iron out the problems. Losing some speed is tolerable if you gain a lot of reliability.
"SIR! THE 17 POUNDER WON'T FIT!" "PUT IT IN SIDEWAYS" "THE RADIO WON'T FIT!" "CUT A HOLE AND HAVE IT STICK OUT THE BACK" "THE ENGINE'S NO GOOD!" "GET FIVE CAR ENGINES AND PUT THEM TOGETHER"
So what your saying it’s a basic Sherman but with a better gun? You know and easy eight turret with the easy eight hull might have been a better pick but that wasn’t ready yet
Whilst Yad La-Shiryon (officially: The Armoured Corps Memorial Site and Museum at Latrun, central Israel ) has PLENTY of Sherman variants on show , it lacks the Firefly , which is somewhat disappointing
I have question that's been bugging me, the Sherman III had a 6 pounder gun, the Firefly had a 17 pounder gun. So the 17 pounder shell is roughly 3 times as heavy right? Shouldn't it cause about 3 times the damage then? In-game, the 17 pounder gun only does about double the damage of the 6 pounder,. In the Napoleonic era, a 18 pounder cannon was far more accurate and damaging then a 6 pounder, but I don't know if that translates into modern tank shells.
ltflak there's also the point of balance. If it were to deal that much more damage, they'd have to kill the rate of fire to balance it out. either way works, but it seems to me that they want the more realistic RoF for the 17 pounder
@Valtr, Yeah, it's just when I hear the tank has a awkward giant gun that fires something almost 3 times as heavy as the previous gun that can slay Tigers, I was expecting something that fired slower and dealt a lot more damage.
I see, I suppose my next question would be why were they unable to fix the problems with the A.30? Was it a case of the original Cromwell chassis being too difficult to work with, or they just knew better once they tried it with the Sherman, I suppose on that note, why didn't the Sherman get a completely new turret like the A. 30?
True, but then couldn't you argue that starting on a new design on a different tank from scratch, as opposed to simply continuing to work with something you're familiar with, would lead to more wasted time? I'm going to assume that Brighty and Witherage had drawn up plans for using the Sherman for a 17 pdr. mount before or during A.30 development.
If you want to be really pedantic the A.30 was actually shorter than the Firefly (and regular Sherman) by about half a foot! And a good portion of it's height was turret rather than hull which in theory should have made it easier to conceal.
I love the firefly for the fact it's the tank you command on call of Duty 3 when you kill the tiger, love the videos since I have always been a big tank enthusiasts even though I'm only 16 I love tanks and you have taught me so much about them and to that I say thank you, i have one request, can you please do the jagdtiger that big german tank destroyer, I love it cause it showed the true power of the German army even though it didn't change much the mechanically aspects of it and the sher size is awesome.
kevin121649 I know right I would love a call of Duty 3 remastered, I think the multiplayer and campaign was fun and entertain with cod haveing vehical and the story being one of the best it woukd probley make alot of people happy.
my grandads brother ,sgt Leslie Jackson was in the sherwood rangers yeomanry 5 troop sergent ,David Renders troop (david in his book referd to laslie jackson as arthur harris for whatever reasons) Leslies tank was a m4 sherman later a firefly called ARCHER , he joined in 1928 and was a profesional soldier , brish expeditionary force,palestine,north africa,el alemein ,d day dry landing day 1 , took leave as having spent only 6 months in england in 5 years abroad fighting , any info would be great , he was awarded a MM military medal in doulouns for nocking 5 at guns out
I'm building a model of the 1c composite just now about the tool positions the hammer and the track tension tool whare were they stowed? I see the hammers mount is on the rear of this VC imbue noticed on 1Cs there not and some say not to put the stowage bin on the back of the 1C but I've seen plenty real old ww2 photos of it with it on both front and rear
Well it did do many of the things that would qualify it for the best tank. It was easy to get out of, had pretty decent armor, was easy to mass produce, was reliable, and didn't break down that much. Depending on the variant, it had a decent or capable gun that was able to knock out tigers and panthers.
Best tank, depends on Country, doctrine and role. There is no single answer. It also depends on the situation you most often will get into, how the infantry is equipment and what you are fighting. The M4/PzIV/t-34 were a jack of all trades. Not excellent at any, but good in all. As a medium battle tank needs to be. You have tank destroyers, mobile artillery, heavy tanks, light tanks and so on for the rest. M4 fared poorly against the Panthers and in general the German tanks, but that's when you call in tank destroyers or move your force of attack to a less equipped part of the front or take your time and start pounding them with artillery and air support. US was in no hurry. So they didnt need a break through tank like the Germans used. Different doctrines. German infantry in 44 had a higher firepower per unit, than the US, so Germany focused their medium tank, the Panther more on tank vs tank fights, with infantry and assault guns providing enough fire power for the job, with out the Panther. Its all apples and oranges.
There are historical sources that confirmed that the Pershing's T26 turret could feasibly be fitted onto the Sherman's turret ring. Unconfirmed sources also said that Brigadier General McLeod Ross once suggested mounting the 17-pounder gun into the T26 turret. Neither proposals ever became a reality. Could the larger T26 turret armed with the 17-pounder gun be a better fit for the Sherman Firefly?
No E8 was a different variant than firefly E8 has larger t66 tracks with Horizontal Volume Spring Suspension (HVSS) and was fittied with a improved version of the Hellcat's m1a1 76 Firefly was pratically sherman mounting a 17 pounder and nothing more
I have a major question for anyone and everyone. How do I remove the turret on the Sherman firefly ? And can I put a black powder charge like naval guns do to fire a round ? I need step by step instructions on turret removal.
is the firefly more famous than the easy 8? Personally, I heard of the easy 8 multiple times before I heard about the firefly, but of course, as an american, my WWII reading is obviously biased towards my own county's contributions.
More people are going to have heard of the Firefly than the E8. The Firefly was built in time for the Normandy Landings because the British foresaw the need for a heavier calibre gun to pen the new Tigers. As such it fought through every western front campaign and got such a fearsome reputation amongst the Germans that tank crews were ordered to make destroying it their top priority in any tank battle. (True fact, look it up.) In comparison the easy 8 came late in the war (Dec 1944) once the Americans realized their mistake in not having a heavier gun on their tanks. As you said, you only hear about it more because America doesn't really cover the contributions of other nations war efforts.
+Wanderer628 Which "E8"? "E8" doesn't refer to a singular type of vehicle nor describes armament. The Tigers (assuming you mean the I) weren't new by that point ok time. The 17 pounder was introduced on the M4 as the Firefly primarily to encounter the anticipated amount of Panthers. There was never any official advisory to prioritize "Fireflies" or 76mm M4s over the rest either.
So you don't really counter anything I say. First you get overly pedantic when I obviously mean the easy 8. The 17 pounder was introduced as the only gun to reliably penetrate the front of a Tiger 1/2 and Panter. Again, nothing contradicted there. Then you say 'There was never any official advisory to prioritize "Fireflies" or 76mm M4s over the rest either. ' Really? Then look at this. 'This fact did not go unnoticed by the Germans, who realised that these long-barrel Sherman's posed a much greater threat to their heavy tanks than the normal Shermans, and German tank crews and anti-tank gun crews were instructed to eliminate Fireflies first. Similarly, the Firefly crews realised that the distinctive long barrel of their 17-pounder gun made the Firefly stand out from standard Shermans, so crews attempted to disguise their tanks to reduce the likelihood of being targeted. Some crews had the front half of the gun barrel painted white on the bottom and dark green or the original olive drab on the top to give the illusion of a shorter gun barrel.' Source is on the wiki page and is quoted on every educational article about the firefly. Doesn't change the fact that outside the general US population most people are going to have heard of the Firefly over the easy 8 late comer.
"Sir! The 17 pounder won't fit!" "Put it in sideways," "The radio won't fit!" "Cut a hole and stick it out in the back." "The engine's no good!" "Get 5 car engines and put them together."
Any idea on what and when the US started using "Christie type" torsion bar suspension in their tanks? The ":record" states that the military liked the Christie type suspension but found the man (Christie) too hard to deal with. He went on to sell his ideas around the world.
You really have to wonder about WW II Brit Tankers. Did they wear berets because they could not get decent helmets? I read where half the British tank casualties were head injuries.
A lot of tanks were so cramped, that a helmet would get stuck in any lever or handle. So it was a trade off. More safety or get stuck and annoyed all the time. Most tank crews of both allied and axis forces didnt use helmets. A padded cover was often enough to prevent bruises. And you dont poke out when being shot at. Besides. If a 75mm AP hits your tank, a helmet wont save you 9/10 times. What saves you, is not getting torn apart and being able to quickly leave the burning tank before the next shot hits.
I am sure some wore. I bet some US rule required helmet use. They had a lot of strict rules. But I doubt many followed them. And yes, if your statistic is correct, it might seems so, because not many wore helmets inside the tanks. but do those head wounds list by what? I imagine a lot might be caused in the early years by fragments. British riveted armor was famous for spalling rivets when being hit by even small caliber tank guns. Could also be the design of british tanks. If they had a bad view and was prone to drive with their heads up. Also, do the list include Bren Carrier personel. Those make sense, seeing driver and passengers had their heads over the armor.
why put a 30 cyl, 2 ton motor in it that has 50 less horsepower than the 500 lb ford v8? Is it purely because that was the motor that Chrysler presented to the govt because Ford could only make so many V8s? Thanks for help clearing this up in advance folks
I can't help but feel like the museum aren't looking after the tank that well. The rust on those tracks and all the chipped and rusted paint on there says it to me, I may be wrong and in that case i am sorry if i am.
I love it, better than it american counterpart for my eyes ! No aromor but a great gun ;) By the way, go get your chieftain, since you got it on console, lucky console peasant! :)
DJxSAM23 Lol i almost always play tier 5 to 7, to me those games are the most dynamic and fun. At tier 9 and 10 I feel like we are all just dumb lumpering juggernauts bouncing rounds like tennis balls and bleeding silver.
DJxSAM23 Funny thing is I've been a member of the P.C. Master race since the first Half Life mods that made CounterStrike but oddly enough I feel like WoT is just better on console.
With the graphics on Console vs PC I can see why! I would go on Console, only if you keep your stat to be transfered, but it not going to happened. I'm just to far away to start a new account, got 4 to 5 years played on PC! :(
