Sherman Firefly vs King Tiger | July 1944 | Tank Duel 

I always wonder if you know that every veteran gets a chill when the radio crackles at the start of each of your videos. The adrenaline rush that accompanies it is both exciting and surreal.

It is O.K , We learn by our Mistakes . And we learned again by your Correction . Thank you for the Video .

Well they dressed up like SS.

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 a black uniform doth not an SS man make

Kudos for your front page correction. You have more integrity than many media outlets!

And even worse try to re-write the events to suit a pro German agenda.

Yes today most people seem content to live in peace under the jackboot conditions of globalist fascist tyranny on a scale way beyond anything Hitler could have dreamed of

Its sad but true. I have seen a bunch of people in my secondary school do Hitler salute's and Swastika's drawn on tables and joking about Stalin killing a lot of people. Wish people could just have at least some respect in them

😂😂😂😂😂🤪

@@abstract0014 Don't over think it, they are just kids pushing boundaries. They'll grow up, after a fashion, soon enough.

These are really bad optics and I can see this happening. Ever fired a 17 pounder> I have. Not inside a Turret though. Round after Round then more Round after round! The hours of waiting then seconds of stark Terror!

Indeed. Some people seem to behave as though the war ended with the Battle of the Bulge. Many months of hard fighting, in some cases some of the fiercest yet in the West, took place in 1945 in the final months of the war. Some of those battles were just a crucial as the ones preceding them.

@@garyhill2740 Not really. The war was already lost. The Germans just hadn't given up yet, because their fearless leader hiding in a bunker, wanted them to fight to the death.

Juli 1944: close to the end of the war? It ended in Europe in may 1945 stupid.

I believe that the month of April 1945 more than 10,000 allied soldiers died making it one of the bloodiest months of the war.

​@@mmoffenbierAlbeit darkly in comparison, that number of casualties was a regular Tuesday afternoon in the Eastern front

We were on their side in this one. Americans didn't want anything to do with another war in Europa. The brother wars definitely took it's toll on Europeans.

@@MikeBrown-go1pc For sure that. There's a RU-vid I saw that pin points all the known battles fought through out history that are listed on wiki. The European land mass is almost blotted out compared to anywere else. Another vid shows the changes in the world map vis-a-vis borderlines. Again, Europe is like a jigsaw puzzle over the centuries, compared to all other areas.

@@MikeBrown-go1pc "Americans didn't want anything to do with another war in Europa..." SOME (isolationist) Americans didn't want anything to do with war in Europe. A small majority - led by people like Charles Lindbergh, Joseph Kennedy and the America First movement. A SMALL majority. But, after Pearl Harbor and Hitler's declaration of war on the US, American participation became obligatory. America joined the British-Soviet Alliance because the mutual objectives of that Alliance - the defeat of Hitler's Germany - coincided. If you believe the USA joined the war to rescue anybody or "'cos freedom...", your history knowledge is still at kindergarten level.

@@alastairbarkley6572 Oh, I know exactly what it was about. That's why I can't say it on this platform without it being deleted immediately. We are living the results of our part in the "big win" in Europa now. Americans wanted the war so bad that US government had to force Japan's hand and then not even warn Pearl Harbor that the attack was coming. US government was already at war with Germany by supplying it's enemies with hundreds of thousands of pieces of military equipment Many of those went directly to communists who would have been defeated without them. 14,000 tanks and 8,000 aircraft went to butchers in the USSR. It's sick. 400,000 trucks and pieces of equipment. Even Stalin said they couldn't have survived the onslaught without all that equipment.

@@MikeBrown-go1pc Ummm... You do know the US required the UK to pay cash on the nail for war supplies until its gold reserves were gone. The US then issued loans/ IOUs which took until this century to pay back. It was a consequence of legislation demanding neutrality. Lease, Lend came later in the war. Some US politicians were quite clear that they were not going to prop up the British Empire. The UK also ceded territory and bases in exchange for 50 clapped out WWI 4 stacker destroyers. They were needed for convoy escorts and had some boilers removed in the UK to add extra bunkerage for extra range in the North Atlantic. This is not to say the supplies weren't essential to the UK's war effort, they certainly were, especially the high octane fuel for the RAF.

Not ANY german tank, but 17pdr was a great AT Gun

@@meisterdestoasts1574yes, ANY German tank. It’s a fact.

@@meisterdestoasts1574yes any German armor. 256mm of apcr pen at 500 meters. 163mm of pen for its basic ap at 500 meters. Not even a tiger 2’s armor can withstand frontally. The 17 pounder is an anti aircraft gun so no shit it’s capable of cutting through even a tiger 2.

Hear hear. Though the Firefly's gun could punch through pretty much any German armour at all but the longest range...

I read By Tank into Normandy, SRY book, and Dring and Semken are mentioned. Stuart Hills I think was the author. You are quite correct in everything you said sir.👏

Good tactics. I always thought there was a way to cook a tiger, and now find out they were getting "Dringed".

@@Mark-vq5dz You are right. It is Stuart Mills and it is a fantastic book. They were some regiment.

@@Mark-vq5dz If you enjoyed Stuart Hill's book, then I recommend Tank Action, by David Render and Stuart Tootal. David and Stuart Hill were contemporary Troop leaders, both joined the SRY around D-Day. David's book is a little more 'warts and all'.

@@justincharlton-jones4787 Duly noted, I'm currently reading With the Jocks, about the Kings Own Scottish Borderes, fantastic read

Only wish they had the firefly or 17pounder in 1942.

@@desoneill5563 yeah,my mum and dad tells me about rationing..and the big sad when sweets weren't anymore..

@@roybennett9284 Or at Dunkirk even, a few hundred of those Fireflys would have thrown back the German armour.

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- I'd just be happy with some mark 2 Matilda's.. apparently there were only about 50 in France at the time of the battle of France...the two pounder was good enough,and amour like a tiger tank.

@@roybennett9284 You know rationing in Britain by the end of the war had made the population the healthiest it had ever been it makes sense.

Very true, the Brits and Canadians absorbed so much of the best the Germans had to offer in order for the right hook to be delivered by Patton.

@@Mark-vq5dz your correct, the British and Canadians fought the Germans best SS Troops and lost a lot of good Men in the process so I personally would like to see them get the appreciation that they deserve.

@@TheGrowler55 Exactly, people just jump on the 'Monty was a completely shit general' bandwagon. It does a disservice to those boys from Canada, UK , and many Americans too who faced up to 12th SS Panzer etc, and the majority of their heavy tank forces.

The decision for the British, Canadian and Polish armour to deliberately take on the SS Panzers and Tigers around Caen was made to pull in the more experienced crews in heavier German armour into that area and allow Bradley's armour to make faster speed around from the West and South. At no time in that campaign did the US Army face any Tigers let alone King Tigers. It did not sit well with the British when the Americans complained about how long it took to take Caen and move forward. Montgomery's plan was to create a pocket where almost the entire German Army in Northern France was encircled with the final closure at Falaise. Sadly Bradley failed to close the Southern jaw of the trap despite Polish armour gaining the hill above Falaise. Thousands of Germans escaped but even so the plan resulted in the destruction of most of Army Group B west of the Seine with over 50,000 Germans captured. It must have been a living hell inside that trap. I do not make excuses for them nor have any sympathy. Just stating a cruel fact.

@@1chish Spot on

My Uncle Jim Grant was with the 7th Armoured all through Africa, Italy and then into Normandy. He ended up in Hamburg. He came back a broken man with a terrible temper. Truly the greatest generation.

I don't think they were intentionally trying to hit the ammo rack, my guess is the gunner simply aimed for the side of the hull because it's a bigger and easier target than the turret and the tiger's ammo storage just happened to be there

They were treating it as a Panther and the ammo is in the same location on the sides, I think it was an aimed panther kill that worked on a Tiger II P

I mean, it could've penatrated it from any side.......but yeah regardless, great work from the crew. What I mean when I say it could've penatrated it from any side. Regardless if they were shooting the front the crew would've turned into mush from the shrapnel.

Destroying enemy tanks from the flanks is a common occurrence, as they did everywhere and always. There is nothing special about it

@@tacos_with_sauce8887 Show me a photo of Tiger 2, penetrated in front by a Sherman

Respect to him and to you

Nazis were giant jackass even all the way to the end.

Amen to that, I bet it was absolutely terrifying

@@alexwright9875 Speaking of Amen, I’ll bet a lot of them were praying at the time. They were braver then I’ll ever be.

No shit!

At least shermans had very good cre survivability for when they did get hit

@@snugglecity3500 the majority of the German tanks had thicker and sloped armour so were a lot better protected than most allied tanks and their 88mm canon was probably the deadliest during WWII

Of course he would have, same goes for the other way around I guarantee it.

Nothing mere about a Panther!

The first crew to knock out a Tiger II on the Western Front... The Red Army had done this before on Eastern Front...

@@ULTRA_2112 not from what I’ve researched. I’d like to see your sources. The first co,bat use of the tiger 2 on the eastern front was on The 12th of August ‘44, almost an entire month after this engagement

@@ULTRA_2112 I'd love to read the history on that if you happen to have it handy

Particularly with only a single round

@@ULTRA_2112 do u realise that the tiger 2 was first deployed during the normandy campaign so your statement is utterly false...

Even a Sherman 75mm could take out a King Tiger from the side too, if it got close enough.

Must be bloody hard to have a six foot four guards man into a tank!

Daglish's 'Over the Battlefield' books are definitely some of my favourites that cover the Normandy campaign, especially for their detail and unique aerial photographs. With regards to the missing 88s at Cagny, I haven't read too much into that topic, although I did briefly come across it a few months ago whilst researching an engagement involving a Sherman Firefly. There's a medal citation held by the National Archives which states that a Firefly knocked out a Tiger tank just North of Cagny. However, most books that cover Goodwood credit the Cagny 88s with knocking out the Tiger in a friendly fire incident, with no mention of a Firefly. If I recall correctly, the Firefly belonged to the 2nd Battalion, Grenadier Guards.

Thankyou for the kind words , my Great Grandfather died in Italy after fighting through North Africa. You Yanks are damn tough yourselves and stood firm also. I pray our 2 nations remain close and always support the other in times of need.

Germans / Russians . Certainly not Italians

@@jackd1582 Itally was in a sort of civil war dominated by the right wing until they flipped on Hitler and then had something to fight for. Many Italian units served valiantly.

@@wisconsinfarmer4742 their underwater units . But kinda fighting some other country's war most of the time

Whoops, sorry, just seen your pinned note.

I think the damage taken by the bombing prior to the operation may have dropped the morale already.

At the general engagement ranges throughout the mid-and late war periods, Tigers were generally able to survive most AT fire. Standard tactic was for them to drive straight into an enemy attack, under covering fire from either other tigers or their accompanying tank destroyers, as each of the tiger battalions consisted of a company of tigers and a company of 'heavy' tank destroyers. The QF 17lbr of the Brits changed that, and the heavy tank battalions tended to take a supporting role, rather than leading attacks against brit forces...which was very apparent at Arnhem/Oosterbeek once it was discovered that Brit 1st Airborne had deployed 17lbrs via glider (which was a real shock to the germans). Although US commentators generally don't like to admit it, the germans didn't have any great concern regarding the US 76mm gun, whereas they had a significant fear of the 17lbr. It was their bogeyman, similar to the Tiger fear of the western allies.

Their great ace of the eastern front, Whitman, was killed quickly in Normandy.

@@Gungho1a - I didn’t know that, so thanks for posting.

@@rogersmith7396 - yes he was. He had had great success at Villers Bocage where he showed initiative and courage, but the Canadians and British finally destroyed his troop in an ambush in August that year.

Yes, you would have been just as brave if called on.

Dude it was a side shot head on it stood no Chance

The side armour of a Tiger II (38mm) was able to be penetrated easily enough and not just by the 17-pounder.

The 17 Pounder was a very effective anti tank gun. Much more effective than the regular US Sherman's gun

@@Slaktrax IIRC the upper hull and turret side was 80mm and angled. I have the specs somewhere.

The 17-pounder was only as good as the kwk36 l/56 on the tiger 1 and at the ranges they fought in the last 6 or so months they good easily take out a king tiger. However the kwk43 l/71 was the best tank/antitank gun of the war. It could take out any allied tank at 2000 + mts . It was far better than the 90 mm american and 122mm russian. But fighting in the towns and citys in europe it was of no use.

No mention of the armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) round available to Firefly crews.

The M4 was less infact designed to kill German tanks, wich it could do farely well with even the 75.

The M4 was infact designed to kill German tanks, wich it could do farely well with even the 75.

To be fair,I would have feared the Panther more than a Tiger

Sounds like what Peter Townsend christened "Spitfire snobbery". Luftwaffe pilots brought down by a Hurricane would often claim they had been victims of a Spitfire, even in theatres where no Spits had been deployed. In fact, Hurricanes in the BoB brought down more enemy aircraft than any other fighter. Two points there, there were more Hurricanes than any other fighter and Hurricanes did not stick to attacking bombers. As one veteran put it, "theory is, all very well, but after the first pass there was total confusion. You shot at whatever was in front of you."

And the Germans saw Shermans everywhere.

@@TheArgieHYes, most people don't go into depth. Spitfires against escorting fighters, Hurricanes against bombers was just the standard opening move when you had both types meeting an attack by escorted bombers. After that everyone is reacting to the other side reacting to them reacting to them ...

@@thetooner8203 Thanks, the other key factor in keeping the numbers up was you could repair a BoB Hurricane with a wooden peg and a mallet, plus a patch of linen and a dab of dope (provided nothing key had been hit, and the steel tube frame was intact). Spitfire's monocoque took rather more TLC. A humorous aside in the same vein. The Fiesler Fi 187? torpedo bomber biplanes (wonder where they got that idea) were sold off to Romania when it was decided that Graf Zeppelin the carrier was not going into service. They were used as general cooperation aircraft and allegedly one actually shot down an over confident P 51, I always, have wondered what the Mustang pilot claimed downed him.

Sherman 76 crews had bigger problems. Next to impossible to frontally take out Tigers, Panthers, Jagdpanthers and Jagdpanzer IVs at anything beyond suicidal close ranges.

Even the Hetzers 60mm sloped front plate was problematic.

The '400 tanks' claim is an error in the original report which double-counted losses on 18th and 19th. Whilst there may have been 250+ tank casualties total losses were circa 100-150.

The Germas had between 600 and 650 tanks at Caen, They lost about 550

@@michaelkenny8540 Most of the British tanks were also put back into action, something that gets left out.

Nowhere near that number were lost, as it turned out, and many that were knocked out were later recovered and repaired. However, the German losses in the campaign as a whole were catastrophic.

@@ivorbiggun710 I agree, it was far more costly for the Germans

And in addition to the ones they knocked out, the Soviets captured three King Tigers intact in that engagement.

It went on to be more successful though, but obviously had no chance to change the outcome.

@@r.j.dunnill1465 that loss in Russia was down to the German crews rushed into combat on a tank they had not had proper time to train on. I recall the Tiger 2s were deployed in muddy ground with no Inf support or RECCE, the T34s were hidden in ambush and waited until the last save moment to fire to maximize chance of Pen the side armour.

@@Chris-qo6qq T-34/85s and IS-2s (which could pen the sides of Tiger IIs at long ranges). The IS-2 leveled the playing field a tad.

True, i didnt notice that good spot. Most of the 503rd was normal Tiger I and one company (3. Kompanie) was the new king tiger's. It's crazy only a few tigers made it out of france most being abandoned to battle damage or no fuel etc.

@@Invicta556 1st Company SpzAbt 503 started Normandy cpaign with Tiger II's. 3rd Company was reequipped after goodwood at Mailly le Camp. The pics in Paris , Manneville and on range all show third company.

@@allendail9562 cheers, forgive the info mix up. Just posted from top of my head and i think 3. Kompanie was Von Rosens. Best book i got on Tigers in france is Wolfgang Schnieder "Tigers in Normandy".

They do look a lot alike. Maybe not beside each other, but from 2000 yards, through smoke, rubble and vision suits or periscopes I would not be critical of mistaking a Mark III or IV for a Tiger I or a Tiger II for a Panther.

At least this one was examined and confirmed after it was knocked out. But yes, what you say is true. On his Military History Visualized channel the host, Bismarck, details how few King Tigers were in Western Europe at this time. He researched this from German records.

They were not equal. The Sherman has a much harder job to get the distance and angle for a kill, and the TIger can shoot several times for every shot the firefly gets off. Give the allied tank crews credit for bravery, because they knew they were at a severe disadvantage tank for tank.

@@miloblue2052 The Sherman or the Firefly had a much harder time to get the distance? How do you know what you say is true? Not saying you're wrong, just curious. Like the cyclic rate of fire, range of fire, sighting systems etc? Otherwise there were at least some advantages the Firefly had over the big German tanks like the King Tiger. The Sherman chassis was faster than the King Tiger. It was much lighter and less apt to get stuck in mud, ditches and bomb craters (as mentioned in this video). It was more fuel efficient and could go longer distances on a given amount of fuel. It was mechanically more reliable and less likely to break down on the battlefield. It was more maneuverable within confined spaces. All of these things contributed to the Firefly's overall combat effectiveness. Doesn't mean it would win every battle that's for sure.

@@drott150 Some good points there. My points come from study and engineering simulations, but any broad overview introduces error. You are right about the firefly having some advantages, but it was a quick shoehorned patch, with the turret not able to efficiently support that gun, and I think the crews eventually understood that if they came up against heavy German armour facing them across a level playing field, they could expect to lose quickly. But at least they could now at least sometimes throw a knockout punch from way more places than before. Still you need tracking, broadsiding or closing in somewhat, etc.; If you don't get the kill first shot, and it sees you, you are toast.

​@@miloblue2052 Interesting. My step-grandfather was a Sherman tank commander in the N. Africa/Sicily/Italian campaign. He made it up to just short of Pisa exactly one month after D-day before an 88 airburst put shrapnel in his neck. He woke up in a pig pen alone some time afterwards with no one around not knowing what had happened. Most of his crew had been killed or injured and sent home up until that point. One guy wandered away from the tank and was shot by a sniper. They used to gamble at night under the tank where they would sleep. He said he was never a big gambler, but would make outrageous bets because he thought he'd be dead in a few days or weeks anyway, so what difference did it make? He ended up winning about $7000, which at that time was enough to buy a house in Kentucky where he was from. He sent the money home in dribs and drabs because there was a limit to how much he could send home with each submission. I remember him telling me a time where he and a row of other Shermans were on a narrow road approaching an opening at a farm. A German tank was hidden by a barn nearby to the road entrance into the field. As the first Sherman entered the field it was hit and destroyed by the Panzer. He said at that time they were instructed to simply back away from a direct encounter with a German tank and to call in a Tank Destroyer. The tank destroyer was a specialized vehicle that had a gun big enough to penetrate German armor. But I believe it was thin skinned and would not fare well if it were hit first. Basically, like the Firefly, you had to get your shot(s) in first and accurately, or that was that. In the army hospital in Rome, he had a bandage all over his neck and chest. Over time he became concerned he was dying because he could smell death on his own body. Until one day he saw a maggot crawl out from under his bandages. He called the nurse over and she reassured him they had deliberately put the maggots into his wounds because they would eat out the infection. He was sent home after that and fully recovered, eventually marrying my grandmother. He struggled with alcoholism up until the early 1950s, presumably dealing with what would be called PTSD in modern times (he never called it that, but that's what it was). But then got over it after finding the lord. One of my fondest memories was visiting the George Patton Armor Museum in Ft Knox Kentucky with jim, where he would correct the tour guides on little details who didn't know of his service. He made it almost to 100 years old, dying just 2 years ago.

@@drott150 Thanks for sharing that. Nice you guys talked about that kind of stuff. What a guy, and you seem to be made of similar good stuff, judging by the calm curiosity evident in your informative and friendly responses to you-tube comments.

The Jagdpanther was not very low profile lol.

If only the French had used their tanks properly - French armour was the best of the lot in 1940. If you read the war diaries of some of the French junior officers, they're truly tragic and pathetic. A major's unit ordered to move every 6 hours, each time to positions more and more irrelevant to the battle and finally, the astonishing order to TORCH operational but unused tanks using their plentiful gasoline supply. French officers (up to Battalion level) were left both furious and ashamed - and with a burning hatred of their High Command. The best recruiting poster for de Gaulle's FFI imaginable. The causes of the 1940 collapse of the best equipped, most militarily powerful country in Europe (in fact, the second most powerful in the world) are really, really complex. If your knowledge is limited to jokes about white flags and cheese, you're missing out on really important history relevant to today. Nazi Germany didn't defeat France. FRANCE defeated France.

This is an interesting comment, it would probably make for an interesting debate. The scale of the impact of more capable tanks, still employed as they were in the fighting, would be really interesting to know. Probably quite uncomfortable to revisionist history as well. I would guess the impact would be negligible without the numbers and tactics of the later war. Of course if they had more capable vehicles *as* *well* as the above the BEF would have a decisive advantage whatever the strategic situation.

Yea, in warthunder terms, ammorack