Crushing Big Cats: How Effective Was The Sherman Firefly Against German Heavy Tanks?

In 1942, the introduction of the Tiger I tank sent shockwaves through the Allied forces, spurring a desperate need to counter its formidable armor.
The British-Army quickly recognized the urgency of developing new, radical vehicles to stand a chance against these German behemoths.
Delays in new designs prompted the British government to consider a more pragmatic approach: modifying an existing tank to meet the demands of the battlefield.
The result was the Sherman Firefly, a modified version of the American Sherman tank armed with a powerful 17-pounder gun and capable of engaging German armor from a safer distance of over 900 meters.
This tank was not just another armored vehicle; it was a game-changer that significantly boosted the morale of Allied tankers.
But How effective was the Sherman Firefly against the might of German heavy tanks?
Join us, as we explore the development, strategies, and battlefield encounters, that made the Sherman Firefly a legend in its own right.
#shermanfirefly #ww2tanks #britishtank

[@davecornett4056]

19.29 My Dad (Radio operator/Loader) Sherman firefly 4th Armoured Brigade crossing the Orne at London Bridge. I have a photograph of them as they left the bridge.

[@bobmcrae5751]

After careful analysis, it has been determined that It was a troop of Canadian Shermans of the Sherbrook Fusiliers who were responsible for killing Michael Wittman. They were waiting in ambush behind a stone wall when Wittman's tiger drove past and he was hit in the flank. Originally, credit had been given to a British Firefly which had already knocked out a few tigers from Wittman's troop at long range. However, it has been found that tank was out of range of where Wittman's tank was hit.

[@FactBytes]

I have made a video on this subject. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5LJqYh_jLGZl80

[@freddieclark]

Ekins was not out of range but over 1200 Yards from the orchard where A Squadron of the Yeomanry was deployed. while only 400-500 Yards from the position of the Sherbrooke tanks.

[@bigwoody4704]

@@freddieclark bullcrap it's all there your henpecking and heresy isn't proof - all measure out Whitman was 400 yds beyond effective range.Have your hander type in that YT presentation for you. Even you can't faff it up probably you were already corrected on this *Battlefield Mystery's The death of Panzer Ace Michael Wittman*

[@gryph01]

​@@bigwoody4704 This is the WW2 version of the who killed the Red Baron argument from WW1.

[@bigwoody4704]

@@gryph01 yes and in both instances British participants took or were credited with the kill. When actual battlefield forensics point to Colonials executing the deed(Australians/Canadians).Whether deliberate or not pure ignorance now to caterwaul to the contrary. Ekins supposedly killed 3 of the 4 Tigers - well a good days work and congrats to him perhaps thought he got Wittman also. But from that very instant the Canadian Sherbrooke's were positive they brewed up Wittman as they witnessed it from 157 yds away not 11-1200 yds away

[@kirkstinson7316]

The firefly could kill a Tiger or panther and a Tiger or Panther could kill a Firefly. It comes down to who got the shot on target first

[@ClassicCase]

It's more complicated than that. The Tiger could survive a Firefly hit at long range, and even if it did get knocked out, there was a good chance the crew survived, especially if APDS was used out of necessity (which is basically a needle). The Tiger could one-shot a Firefly at any range and crew survivability was just as low as in a normal Sherman. It's a glass cannon compared to the Tiger. This guy's documentary is a flowery account at best. That said, it did provide the Allies with something mobile that could keep Tigers and Panthers at bay, or at least prevent them just charging in.

[@dmajor9982]

@@ClassicCaseone thing often not mentioned is a tiger etc is knocked out, crew run, wait weeks for another tanks. The Sherman’s get hit, the crew run, but they’re often back in the fight within the next few days. The Tigers wasn’t so good that it could ignore it’s problems in design and construction.

[@jamesdunn9609]

@@ClassicCase In real life Firefly's smoked Tigers on a regular basis. You must be Wheraboo

[@spartancanuck]

@@ClassicCase Crew survivability was good in the Sherman though.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@jamesdunn9609 Only between 50-70 Tigers were destroyed in tank vs tank combat in the West, 5-10 of these by Fireflies. It was not a common occurence.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

Joe Ekins destroyed four German heavy tanks on his own with this beast, including three Tiger I tanks.

[@billballbuster7186]

He was not the only one, but the most famous because he took out Wittmann. Though this was only discovered in1985 after a investigation by After The Battle magazine.

[@bigwoody4704]

Nope Eakins got 3 the Sherbrooke's got Witmman - FACT

[@billballbuster7186]

@@bigwoody4704 Hi Woodentop, you are obviously using the debunked fiction of Brian Reid who was not there and had no documented information. He did not even know for sure were the Sherbrook Fusiliers were when Wittmann was killed. He used the 1985 investigation adding to it. But that doesn't work as it is at odds with the documentation and eye witness accounts! Thats why the words "Speculation" and "theorize" are used by historians commenting on Reids story.

[@frankvandergoes298]

@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- Tony the Northamptonshire Yeomanry had 5 Shermans in position in the wood, 4 x 75mm + 1 Firefly. The Tigers were travelling buttoned down, the 4 75mm Shermans were told to concentrate their fire on the lead Tiger which they hit repeatedly damaging its steering, while the Firefly knocked them out from last to first. Yes the Firefly got the killing shots simply because at that range the 75mm couldn't do it. Overall I think it was a team effort.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@frankvandergoes298 You are correct in that the three Tigers destroyed by Joe Ekins was a joint effort. Fire from the 75mm Shermans served to keep the Tigers crews occupied while Sgt Gordon's Firefly took care of buisiness. Several men from the Shermans gave eye witness accounts of the battle for the 1985 Investigation.

[@robertpatrick3350]

The end of WW2 saw the arrival of additional advanced allied tanks such as the comet, centurion (although it didn’t see action) and the Pershing which must have come as further shocks to the Germans. My grandfather recounted that he felt far more confident when the heavy armoured units that joined them as the crossed the Rhine had switched over to the Comet from the Sherman.

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

I know that during the Battle of the Bulge, the British armoured division are just handed in the Shermans and were about to get Comets, and were really pissed off they had to go back to their old Shermans in order to go to the front line.

[@stevebaker8966]

😊😊😊 3:51 😊😊

[@jeannotschumacher1024]

The Allied included the Russians if anyone forgets it. Nearly all the german tank forces were concentrated on the eastern front where it mattered not in the west with the exception of 2 weeks in decembre 1944. The Russians had better tanks than the western allies in 1941-45 including a vast number of JS2 tanks. The germans knew where it mattered.

[@paultyson4389]

Whitman led 4 Tigers across an open field. A Firefly was hidden in the trees to the side while Canadian Shermans were hiding behind a wall at the front. The Firefly had a ringin gunner, Ekins (?) normally the radioman on board. In quick succession Ekins knocked out three of the Tigers while the Canadians fired at the fourth Tiger, causing a "turret toss" as it exploded. A detailed documentary established that it was the Canadian Shermans that accounted for Whitman's tank.

[@alericc1889]

HIDDEN was the key point.....

[@billballbuster7186]

There are some significant detail differences in the accounts of the battle. The first investigation was in 1985 just after Wittmann's body was discovered in 1983, was conducted by After The Battle magazine. Two British historians Ken Tout and Les Taylor claimed that gunner Joe Ekins in a Sherman MkVc of the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry destroyed 3 Tigers in 12 minutes as they crossed a field directly in front of his tank. A Panzer IV was also destroyed by Ekins a little later. The Tiger turret numbers 312, 007 and 314 were recorded in the unit War Diary. Tiger tank 007 was Wittmann's tank on that day, giving documented proof Ekins killed him. This is the account accepted by most historians. The Canadian claim came in 2005 by writer Brian Reid who said he had interviewed veterans of the Sherbrook Fusiliers who claimed to be near by. There is no documentation to verify Reid's claim and there are serious discrepancies with the documented British claim. Firstly Reid did not positively identify the Canadian position, he assumed it was at the farm house below the British position. He admits Ekins destroyed 3 Tigers, but claimed there were 5 Tigers in the field, not 3 in the British account? Though the British overlooked the farm buildings of the supposed Canadian position, their presence is not mentioned in their War Diary?

[@frankvandergoes298]

Wittman led 7 Tigers, not 4. There was a Firefly hidden in the trees, Correct, plus 4 other 75mm Shermans. The plan was the 4 75mm Shermans would concentrate on the lead Tigers while the Firefly knocked out the rearmost. Plus the 8 Canadian Shermans hidden in the chateau, so thats 13 Shermans in total.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@frankvandergoes298 Where is this information from? We know from German sources that Wittmann left with 7 Tigers. But several eye witnesses say when Ekins destroyed the 3 Tigers 312, 007 and 314, that these were the only Tigers in that field, followed later by a Panzer IV. It is also recorded several 75mm Shermans from the regiment fired as a distraction. The only Canadian account from Reid is based on guesswork as he was not there. Also there are no documents on the battle from any Canadian source. As Reid's story is so different from the documented British accounts investigated in 1985. I think the Canadians were at a different location entirely, or Reid made it up to sell his book.

[@jacktattis]

No Joe Ekins from the 1st NY got him.

[@bwilliams463]

I enjoyed watching the footage, but the narration goes over the same points several times.

[@crashburn3292]

I'll bet the first person who said, "How about we put the 17-pounder gun in a Sherman?" got a chuckle from everyone in the room.

[@Rob-xj3xh]

My great uncles, all five of them served in WW2. They told me all they saw was shot up Shermans during the war. One uncle made a comment on how bad he hated the German 88mm shot at him. All my great uncles were Infantry with the except of one who was a decorated medic, he was also my god father. He was there on D Day and spoke about how the water on the beaches being so red from the killed and wounded soldiers.

[@mattiasdahlstrom2024]

As infantry it mattered that the 88 fired supersonic HE shells, meaning the infantry got now 'boom' warning that something fired. There was no warning about the incoming shell...

[@jimgriffin3672]

B

[@jimgriffin3672]

B bu bj​@@mattiasdahlstrom2024

[@TheFunkhouser]

The Germans feared it so much they targeted the Fireflys so the allies camoed the end of the 17 to make it looks like a normal 75mm

[@billballbuster7186]

@@TheFunkhouser my bad clicken wrong post

[@TheFunkhouser]

@@billballbuster7186 LOL fair 'nough :D

[@HENRISTARKS]

Don't even go there! Sherman's were worthless Steel coffins, who hid behind air support, artillery, codebreakers. NOT FIGHTING PROWESS!

[@tyo8663]

One problem (from memory 😮) with the Firefly was that the gas from the shortened gun run out couldn't quite escape. Apparently when they fired a few rounds a 'fireball' would run around the turret. That's why they still wore goggles & had blackened faces, making them easy to identify.

[@markpaul-ym5wg]

That's is the purpose of the bore evaculator.Its the big thing in the center of modern tanks.This device let gasses excape thru a port.😊Prior tanker here for 12 years.

[@billballbuster7186]

Never heard of that. But the muzzle flash was notorious and if not careful to look away could cause temporary blindness.

[@moritztabor1678]

Thanks for your work as always. Appreciate it

[@akuper7297]

Thanks for the video. The real value of the 17 pdr was being able to engage panzer 4s and Stugs armed with the 7.5cm L/48. The 75mm gun on regular Shermans was significantly outranged by the L/48, and even more so by the Panther’s L/70.

[@freddieclark]

Except of course that average battlefield ranges in the ETO was between 650-800 metres.

[@sthrich635]

Average "Western Europe" & "Italian" battlefield that is. The Americans and their Shermans were more than lucky that they don't have to fight on broad Russian soil and instead had tens of thousands T-34 doing and paying for their jobs.

[@akuper7297]

@@sthrich635 Hi, yes you’re absolutely right, however that still leaves a lot of duels taking place at long ranges. Accounts from 44/45 relate lots of engagements at 1000 metres or more. At those ranges the 75mm general purpose gun was better off using HE to damage sights and periscopes, etc, and if they’re lucky cause some spalling in the interior of the tank. So having a friend that could match the German guns at almost any range was pretty helpful.

[@freddieclark]

@@sthrich635 Well, that is of course the nature of war. The Soviets (it was USSR soil, not just Russian soil) lost huge numbers of t-34's showing just how poorly it actually performed in battle.

[@HarryHoffman-g4n]

@@freddieclark and how poor the Red army tactics were in the first years of the war.

[@infolover_68]

The only big flaw was the frontal and sides armor of the Firefly since it was the same thickness of the standard Sherman tank. Any Tiger or a Panther tanks could knock out the Firefly as well...

[@stephenhoffman753]

True. And also the Panther tank had very thin side armor as well.

[@infolover_68]

@@stephenhoffman753 So whichever of them that fired the right shot was the winner.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

The Firefly was largely developed , made and delivered in time for D-Day Normandy at the behest of 21st Army Group commanded by Montgomery. This AG faced the vast bulk of German panzer forces in Normandy and continued taking delivery to May 1945. By December 1944 over 50% of Shermans delivered to 21st AG were Fireflies. They were also used by British, Commonwealth and Polish forces in Italy.

[@JLee-rt6ve]

Not at the behest of 21st Army Group, at least according to Wikipedia, but rather Major George Brighty and Lieutenant Colonel George Witheridge, who had to overcome British Army resistance to the idea.

[@michaelmazowiecki9195]

@@JLee-rt6ve resistance was from REMFs, that is, General Staff who were keen on developing a completely new tank which eventually became the Centurion. Operations commanders , 21st Army Group took a more practical approach: they needed a timely, functioning solution for the Normandy landings, the Firefly. A similar situation to "Hobart's funnies" which were practically entirely used by 21st AG, other than the DD Shermans.

[@hanspeterx]

this is new to me, i am watching since 10 years WW2 documentaries, is the first time i learn that the Firefly gun could penetrate Panthers and Tigers within 1000m range, nice to know! Awesome british Sherman Modification, imagine the Firefly being introduce earlier and produced in larger numbers, it could change the war.

[@kierans1159]

The Allies soon worked out that any attack would be met with a German counter attack so they developed the tactic of a fairly limited attack, then saturating the counter attack with artillery as soon as it happened. The Firefly was used extensively to counter attack the counter attack (if that makes sense) in ambushing any remaining tanks that survived the artillery and this was a key part in the wearing out of the Panzer forces attacking from the East of the bridgehead.

[@Colonel_Blimp]

@@kierans1159 the good old “bite and hold.”

[@JohnHill-qo3hb]

Just before and after the 7 minuet mark, those Shermans bore an uncanny resemblance to a Centurion tank.

[@AnthonyOMulligan-yv9cg]

The Roman's had Centurions?

[@tankman966]

Mk 3s

[@24meandyounothing]

It took 15 minutes of this video for the commonwealth forces to become CANADIANS! At least he finally said it.

[@robertschriek1353]

Yes and thank you Canadians for liberating my country, the Netherlands.

[@blindandwatching]

The Canadian Firefly was called "The High Stick".

[@Dtsaroyan]

Canadians kicked ass...mad respect

[@Rusty_Gold85]

Yeah quite often the "Allies " in the pacific were the Australians

[@luciusesox1luckysox570]

Northamptonshire Yeomanry were English..

[@dustygrunt]

Im 60 and still love my Chuck's and shorts, as far as a watch I have a citizens aviator that I've worn for the past 30+ years

[@keithallver2450]

I wonder. How much success did the British have with the Achilles? An American M10 tank destroyer mounted with the 17-pounder.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

Or the Archer, the 17 pounder self propelled gun/tank destroyer with the gun (sensibly) pointing backwards over the cut down hull of an obsolescent design Valentine tank? No need to turn around to quickly ‘relocate’. The allied _tank destroyers_ were not exposed to much mass retreat action. The U.S. M 10s did well in _The Bulge._

[@billballbuster7186]

A total of 1,150 17 Pdr SP M10 were converted in the last year of the war. They equipped Anti-Tank Regiments, Royal Artillery, a regiment would have 24 x Towed Guns and 24 x SP Guns. The 17 Pdr equipped Regiments served only with Armoured Divisions and Army Corps. The most famous uses was the 62nd A/Tk Reg at Buron 7 July 44 when 2 x 17Pdr SP M10 destroyed 13-15 tanks of the 12 SS Panzer Hitlerjugend causing the offensive to be called off.

[@jackx4311]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 - the problem with the M.10 was the ammunition. The gun was only effective against the heaviest German armour with High-Velocity Armour Piercing (HVAP) - but, in the summer of 1944, 3 inch HVAP ammunition was in very short supply. In contrast, as the production line for the British 17-pounder ammunition was set up in 1942, and it entered service in February, 1943, it was available in huge quantities.

[@brianhillis3701]

​@jackx4311 The M10 was vulnerable to grenades. They required strong infantry support. They were cold and wet too.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@brianhillis3701 The M10 was very vulnerable, because it was used offensively. It needed infantry cover, but this was not possible in the way it was used. The 3" HVAP was not really effective against the frontal armour of Tiger 1 or Panther. The British 17 Pdr M10 Achilles was used defensively as a mobile anti-tank gun and always with infantry cover. The 17 Pdr could easily penetrate Tiger 1 and Panther frontally at 1,500 meters. As well as Tiger 2 at 1,000 meters using APDS ammunition

[@martinjones3519]

Excellent, level-headed presentation... unlike a lot of your neighbours to the south. Well played.

[@GreySphinkter]

It's a good example of improvisation through necessity such as the marrying of the P-51 air frame and the Merlin engine resulting in the Mustang. It came just in the nick of time as the allies did not have a comparable tank that could have stood up to the heavier German models,.and the Brits had to contend with the majority of German armoured formations on the eastern flank of the battle for Normandy.

[@HarryHoffman-g4n]

Addition of the Merlin to the mustang was reportedly delayed by a U.S. colonel foe 6 months. Too proud to stick a British engine in a U.S. plane

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

It was a wonderful historical coverage video about British upgraded Sherman Fire Fly (MBT)...the tank fixed with 17-pounder gun ...thank you 🙏 (fact bytes) channel for sharing

[@kees1705vanwely]

Thank you for the great explanation. I enjoyed it a lot. So, thnx again.

[@jacktattis]

It was not the British Government, it was two British Officers who came up with the idea.

[@billballbuster7186]

The Ministry of Supply rejected the 17 Pdr being mouted in a Sherman turret. But a group of army Officers proved it could be done by mounting one in an M4A4. The RAC then called the MoS and an engineer came down to see it. He was impressed and the MoS then sent a design team to work out a proper conversion. This was almost a total rebuild of the tank, but it ended up working very well.

[@jacktattis]

@@billballbuster7186 Thanks but according to Dr Stephen Hart Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 The RAC Gunnery School at Lulworth had already undertaken some unofficial experiments in the Summer of 1943 and they were able to convince the War Office that is was feasible and economical .No MOS or engineer is mentioned

[@billballbuster7186]

@@jacktattis That is not the full story, of the conversion. The Lulworth tank had a fixed gun which was unacceptable, but led to Vickers tank Design Engineer Mr W.G.K Kilburn designing a complete conversion of both hull and turret. The Department of Tank Design (DTD ) were in charge of the work, but they are a dept of the MoS.

[@jacktattis]

@@billballbuster7186 If you say so.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@jacktattis I know so, you check it out.

[@rbattson7171]

Standard shermans, were still destroying enemy tanks, it just took more of them to do it. Weren't tigers vulnerable, with less armour at the rear?

[@Headloser]

After seeing the manufacture of the Sherman Firefly, 4:21, no wonder it a game changer. Germany industries couldn't even keep up production to match American productions.

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

Seems that despite some of its ergonomic shortcomings, the Brits were equally invested in upgunning M4s with their excellent 17 pdr AT gun based on logistical concerns. Based on US tank destroyer doctrine, hundreds of new M1 76 mm cannon upgunned M4s got left behind in the UK on D-Day in favor their TDs. Seems both Allies dropped the ball by not ramping up production of their new sub-calibre discarding sabot ammo,

[@longrider42]

The 76mm gun on the Sherman, US Sherman that is. Was a shorter barreled gun then the 17 Pounder. So muzzle velocity and ranges was lower and shorter.

[@PeterOConnell-pq6io]

@@longrider42 Not to mention the 17 pdr's ~3-fold larger propellant load. Suspect expectations for delivery of the nevertheless highly effective discarding sabot rounds failed to come together as planned.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The sabots were only good (with Canadian ammo) in the Fireflies after the war. They worked fine in the modified ‘77mm’ _17 pounder_ in the late war Comets.

[@freddieclark]

Nothing to do with tank destroyed doctrine. The US armour commanders did not request them because experience in Italy and North Africa led them to believe that they would be facing small numbers of Tigers (actually almost none) and Panthers (which they assumed was a limited run specialist tank like the Tiger). When they realised the panther would be encountered in larger numbers because it was intended to be a replacement for the Panzer IV, they began shipping the 76mm gun armed tanks very quickly.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

@@freddieclark The U.S. Army hadn’t worked out that the desk generals were not all that smart. With only a year’s fighting experience it hadn’t discovered the smart ones yet.

[@imdoobie80]

History is awesome. Thank you for sharing.

[@Solly-Tom]

Good video. It explains things about the modifications to the Sherman that hadn't made sense before.

[@thatonecousin]

Michael Whitman will tell u how much damage a 17 pounder does in hell 😂

[@TheFunkhouser]

Typhoons got him, the Canadians where just there after

[@jacktattis]

@@TheFunkhouser No Joes Ekins 1st Northamptonshire Yoemanry has been credited to the kill Source Sherman Firefly V Tiger Normandy 1944 By Stephen A Hart

[@LeftCoastStephen]

@@TheFunkhouser This claim has been debunked as Nazi propaganda.

[@brettcurtis5710]

Canadian researcher Norm Christie seems to have good evidence that he was hit in the rear by a Canadian 75mm Sherman from a troop of 3 unseen behind a wall to his left-rear! Although a Brit Firefly did kill at least 3 other Tigers in this engagement. No records exist of Typhoons or other Allied aircraft in that area at that time!

[@lastguy8613]

​@@TheFunkhouseractually he just ran out of petrol

[@dwwolf4636]

It was an adequate tank destroyer. It focussed on tank killing at the cost general usability ( gunner and loader had to perform contortionist acts to work the gun) lower RoF and less ability to engage infantry ( HE spam was ~90% of tank work ).

[@billballbuster7186]

This is why tank troops originally had 3 x 75mm tanks and one Firefly in reserve. By September it was usually 2 x Firefly and 2 x 75mm tanks. This tactic certaily worked very well. The gunner and loader were actually well situated, as the Sherman turret was quite large, even with 17 Pdr. The bow MG issue is moot as almost all post-WW2 tank designs did away with it including the highly successful Centurion of 1944. The US tank battalions used similar distribution in late 44 using a mix of 76mm and 105mm tanks. However the US did not fight any major tank battles in Normandy so their tanks were never really put to the test. Even Patton the "great tank genius" never actually fought a major tank battle, just minor skirmishes.

[@billballbuster7186]

Yes the Tiger was feared as it was far larger and better armed than any Allied tanks of 1942. The 17 Pounder was designed in 1940 and it was in service by late 1942 and Anti-Tank guns were sent to Tunisia to counter the Tiger 1. Some good info here but also a few errors. The first British 17 Pdr tank was the A30 Challenger, the Firefly was proposed in late 1943 as the A30 was delayed. The Firefly was not a Standard Sherman it was gutted and the ammunition was stored in armoured bins on the floor of the tank, greatly reducing fire risk. The British destroyed 90% of all German tanks in Normandy, only a small part on one Division faced the US. The 17 Pdr was accurate to 2.000 meters with APCBC ammo, but the APDS did have issues and the first rounds were limited to 500 meters. However the issue, the aperture on the Muzzle Brake, was cured a few months later, APDS was vastly superior even to APCR used by the US and Germans, and that too had irratic performance. The US 90mm could not penetrate the front hull of the Panther, the 17 Pdr could with standard ammo at 1,000 meters. The A30 Challenger also entered service in June 1944 but only 200 were built, the sacond batch were modified to the A30 17 Pdr SP Avenger.

[@garyhughes2446]

So Patton was able to do all of his damage against the germans with a more pathetic tank than the british had.

[@Raidernation1994]

@@garyhughes2446if it weren’t for the 17 pounder gun results would’ve been different

[@contumelious-8440]

Yes, the British did well with the AMERICAN Sherman 17 lb mounted Firefly after they were unable to produce a Crusader model equal to the task. The British were losing the war badly and were lucky to get enough materials and technical help to produce a viable tank. The Firefly was still a novelty compared to the tens of thousands of 75mm Sherman tanks the US produced and deployed. (which had no bearing on the war, only British tanks) Ok, the British destroyed all the tanks everywhere. The US, despite designing and giving the British the materials to make the Firefly couldn't make a tank that could penetrate the Panther frontal armor even though all historians agree the 90mm was a better gun than the 17 lbr. I don't know why I even try, You have decided the US was a footnote in the Great British War against Oppression.

[@pt109che]

@@contumelious-8440 WW2 started in September 1939 and the British and its Commonwealth Forces fought and held the Axis forces at bay until the USA joined the fight in December 1941.

[@franz5726]

Most of German Tanks and Units was destroyd by air.

[@elmothedonklon9154]

I loved the Firefly in Forgotten Hope, a Mod for Battlefield 1942, the best game ever.

[@partygrove5321]

The Sherman bashers forget that when it was introduced it was better than the Pz 3s and 4s

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

It was only roughly comparable with the older, smaller and 35% lighter Panzer IV. The Panzer IVF2 had a gun that could penetrate almost twice as much as the Sherman's 75mm gun already at the time of the introduction of the Sherman.

[@freddieclark]

@@TTTT-oc4eb But the Germans could only field 27 of them in North Africa and most of these were destroyed at Alam el Halfa and El Alamein. , these numbers are basically insignificant compared with the Allied numbers.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@freddieclark The statement was "better", not about numbers.

[@freddieclark]

@@TTTT-oc4eb And it was better than 99% of tanks that the Nazi's fielded at that time.

[@jacktattis]

Pz3 yes Pz4 both the PZ4 and Sherman were close in performance etc. The Pz4 had a better main gun by far and was not as high as the Sherman

[@tophat2115]

You might like Marc Milner's book, Stopping the Panzers. It details some of the actions the Firefly fought in and their victories.Including one battle where 6 panthers were knocked out by one firefly.

[@frankvandergoes298]

@tophat2115 Operation Bluecoat a single Tiger wiped out C company 23rd Hussars in 35 minutes, knocking out 14 Shermans, 1 anti tank gun + multiple half tracks & carriers..The tank commander had to crawl through the cornfields to a nearby tank to get 2 additional shells to knock out the 15th Sherman. 5 Tigers from 3rd company SS 101 engaged the Polish Armoured division destroyed 38 tanks without loss to themselves. Taskforce Worthington engaged by 4 Panthers and 5 Tigers wiped out losing 44 Shermans, 2 Stuart's, 1 Valentine + multiple other armoured vehicles, the Germans had no loss.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@frankvandergoes298 "The superiority of German armour was illustrated again when three Jagdpanther tank destroyers knocked out 11 Churchill tanks of 3rd Scots Guards on Hill 226." IWM Tactics and the Cost of Victory in Normandy

[@stephenbarker5162]

There seems to be a lot nationlistic point scoring on here. Eighty years after D-Day it seems rather pointless. We shold all be grateful to those who fought to defeat the Nazi regime and secured the freedoms we enjoy to-day.

[@billballbuster7186]

Its down to fact v fiction. The Americans rarely if ever acknowledge that other countries fought in WW2, sometimes harder and for longer. They love to blow their own trumpet.

[@ArmenianBishop]

@@billballbuster7186 Well, Moscow has been doing annual Victory Celebrations for more than a half century. So, I don't buy it.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@ArmenianBishop That makes my point, when have you heard Americans recognizing the sacrifice of the Russian people in WW2?

[@nickdanger3802]

@@billballbuster7186 The Great Patriotic War The term is not generally used outside the former Soviet Union, and the closest term is the Eastern Front of World War II (1941-1945). Neither term covers the initial phase of World War II in Eastern Europe, during which the USSR, then still in a non-aggression pact with Germany, invaded eastern Poland (1939), the Baltic states (1940), Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina (1940) and Finland (1939-1940).

[@billballbuster7186]

@@nickdanger3802 The Eastern Front is the English translation of the German term Ostfront, in reference to the war with the Soviet Union after Barbarossa. The Western Allies never gave the war in Russia a specific name, so I guess both could be used.

[@jamesthompson8431]

The way in which you pronounce "Wittman" and German ranks is hilarious. I thought us Aussies spoke funny!

[@charlesfiscus4235]

The Panther used a high velocity 75 mm MG and the Tiger used the 88 mm MG. These were probably the most devastating weapons in the German arsenal.

[@rheinmoses29]

To properly compare the Sherman Firefly with the German Tiger I and Tiger II tanks, we need to consider several factors: 1. Firepower: The Sherman Firefly was armed with a powerful 17-pounder (76.2 mm) gun, which gave it superior anti-tank capabilities compared to the standard Sherman. This gun could penetrate the armor of both Tiger I and Tiger II tanks at combat ranges. Tiger I had an 88 mm KwK 36 gun, while Tiger II had an even more powerful 88 mm KwK 43. Both were excellent anti-tank guns. 2. Armor: The Sherman Firefly's armor was essentially the same as a standard Sherman, which was much lighter than both Tiger tanks. Tiger I had significantly thicker armor, and Tiger II had even heavier and more effective sloped armor. 3. Mobility: The Sherman Firefly, being based on the Sherman, was more mobile and reliable than both Tiger tanks. It could travel farther without breaking down and was easier to repair. Both Tiger tanks, especially the Tiger II, were slower, less maneuverable, and prone to mechanical issues. 4. Production and deployment: Sherman Fireflies could be produced in much larger numbers and more quickly than Tiger tanks. This meant they were more readily available on the battlefield. Conclusion: The Sherman Firefly was not strictly superior to the Tiger tanks. It had advantages in firepower (compared to Tiger I), mobility, reliability, and ease of production. However, it was inferior in terms of armor protection. The effectiveness of these tanks often came down to factors like crew training, tactical usage, and strategic deployment rather than just technical specifications.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The Firefly was a tank destroyer, not a medium tank.

[@ronhall9394]

No - the Sherman IIC and VC were ordinary Shermans fitted with 17lbers and operated within a tank troop. The only difference from the usual Sherman was the bustle on the rear of the turret was extended to allow space for the radio in a very cramped fighting space. If they were officially classed as tank destroyers they would have been manned by Royal Artillerymen (like the Achilles, Archer and Avenger), however they were not, they were manned by the men from the Armoured Regiments.

[@andrewkatai521]

The Americans very rarely met a tiger let alone a crew older than their chewing gum !

[@longrider42]

Right, the 17 pounder had one major advantage over the American 75 and 76mm guns. The Long Barrel. Which meant the round could use more powder and reach higher velocities. Or look at it this way. If you target shoot with a .22, and you use a short barreled pistol or revolver, and then a longer barreled rifle. There is a big difference. If the US had put long barreled 75mm and 76mm guns on the Sherman, it would have been a game changer from the start. Took the British to figure it out, but the Americans did not want to use the British design. Live and Learn. And even though the Tiger and Panther tanks had good guns and armor. The rest of the tank sucked rocks sideways :) Bad engines and transmissions.

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

The brass cartridge cases were vastly different in size. The 76 was similar to a Pz IVs, the 17 pdr was similar to a Panther or Tiger’s. The 76 had a long barrel.

[@jonnyblayze5149]

I like how you just make up bulls#it in your little story

[@truthhurts9241]

Not to mention a huge "Drink Problem!"

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

By 1944 both the Tiger and Panther were as reliable as any other WW2 tank - readiness rates from the German units show this.

[@markthomas6436]

Moriarty: "The fuel system leaks all over the place. It's a piece of junk!" 😂

[@R-Lmaxan]

Where was the Firefly made, was it fully manufactured in the U.S. or was it just modified in U.K. ?

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

The Sherman Firefly tank was built in the Chrysler Factory in America in 1944, and then converted in a Royal Ordinance Factory in the UK.

[@nightjarflying]

British Army Sherman Fireflys were UK converted from US made lend-lease Shermans. Canada converted a few, but they remained in Canada for training - the Canadians using UK-converted Fireflys in the field.

[@jamesboardman7048]

My American friends are quick to say we gave you lend lease , but are not aware that it was paid back in full with interest in 2006 was Britains last payment.

[@davidsauls9542]

And, I think the UK was the only nation to repay the loan. The soviets paid us nothing !! I believe most of us over here fully understand that and hold the UK in the highest regard.

[@terrymarsh1255]

Much of what they sent us in the desperate early days of the war was obsolete but filled the gaps left by leaving so much at Dunkirk.

[@bigwoody4704]

not really the RN was pushing planes off the flight decks at the end of the Pacific War in the waters around Australia.

[@freddieclark]

@@davidsauls9542 Wrong. the Soviet Union repaid $722 million in 1971, with the remainder of the debt written off.

[@davidsauls9542]

@@freddieclark That didn't make a dent in the interest, let alone the principle.

[@SuperGoodison]

Thanks to the british 17-pounder gun on that, it could pentrate the tiger armour.

[@darkprotector9562]

Compared to most German tanks the Sherman, in every guise, was complete and utter crap. Even with it's improved main gun the Firefly's relatively thin armor made it VASTLY inferior. A cheap, cookie-cutter tank that at best was an anti-personnel vehicle, because the designer(s) grossly underestimated the capabilities of armored vehicles in combat - unlike the Germans. It wasn't until the Pershing appeared that the US Army could engage Panthers & Tigers on equal terms. Don't believe me? Then read the first-hand accounts of American & German WWII tankers in Adam Makos' excellent book: "Spearhead".

[@nickdanger3802]

Had the same armor in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 Arab Israeli Wars.

[@michaelkenny8540]

What a load of rubbish. Ill-informed clap-trap from a man with one book!

[@shanehansen3705]

interesting though looking at this it might have been more practical to modify the Lee/grant tank with the 17lbr as there would have been more room replacing the HE guns in that model

[@jackx4311]

Wrong: you keep repeating that "the Firefly was the only *British* tank capable of penetrating the armour of the Panthers and Tigers". The truth is that, thoughout the whole of 1944, the Firefly was the *only ALLIED tank* capable of doing so. As you say, yourself, the US Army did not have a tank capable of taking out Panthers and Tigers until the Pershing entered service in 1945. So, how about giving credit where credit is due? I grant you that the Firefly was a lash-up, with a number of drawbacks, but nothing bad enough to prevent it from doing a damn fine job.

[@rodrigorincongarcia771]

you forget soviet tanks.

[@nickdanger3802]

Tank Chats #111 | Sherman M4A1 (76) W | The Tank Museum kzbin.info/www/bejne/gnqzeGWVibR8itE

[@billballbuster7186]

The Firefly was a very professional conversion by a Vickers Tank Design Engineer, a Mr Kilburn and his team. The only "lash-up" was the RAC pilot tank which was built as a test project. You never here criticisms of the Firefly from those that crewed it and knew it best. The 17 Pounder was far superior to all US tank guns and could penetrate Tiger and Panther frontal armour at over 1,000 meters with standard APCBC ammunition. The 90mm gun on the M-36 and M-26 could only penetrate the frontal armour of Tiger and Panther with HVAP ammo which was in short supply. The M-36 was usually only issued 6 rounds, the M26 was not issued with it at all. The standard ammunition was the M82 APC which on test breached the front plate of the Tiger at 300 meters, the Panther was immune. The US regognized this and tested the 90mm T-15 gun, but this was later abandoned. It should also be pointed out APCR/HVAP amunition was by nature erratic in terms of accuracy.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@@billballbuster7186 I wonder if the Matilda II could have been equipped with the 57mm 6 pounder gun.

[@billballbuster7186]

@@Bullet-Tooth-Tony- The 6 Pounder A27 turret was mounted on the A12 Matilda MkIV, but it looked like shit and didn't work all that great.

[@DexterBanks5555]

The firefly looked more menacing and powerful than the goofy, almost cartoonish looking Panthers and Tigers.

[@JamesPhieffer]

Ummm... In Northwest Europe, there were British and Canadian units. No other Commonwealth land units. So why wouldn't you just refer to British and Canadian units in 21st Army Group - which contained two armies, First Canadian and Second British.

[@Todd3246]

I do enjoy this, but was a little taken back while you are decsribing the manufacturing of the firefly your showing a lee/grant 37mm turret moving across the screen. Not a big issue but some of us like the historical accuracy.

[@dongeiger8393]

Unfortunately the Americans did not copy this because it was a British development!

[@claymaxon]

Not so. The US developed the 76mm high velocity gun. The tankers in the field didn’t want it.

[@jacktattis]

Probably correct The US did not like using Brit equipment unless it was absolutely necessary Partly due to national pride and partly due to political lobbying for local products 50 states 50 different state government lobbying

[@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935]

They made a better 57mm than the base 6 pounder.

[@jacktattis]

@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 Americans always say that.

[@independentthinker8930]

They developed thier own tank, just entered to late, only had a few battles, one filmed is famous. It had better armor than the Sherman chassis

[@ClimateScepticSceptic-ub2rg]

Wittmann's Tiger seems to have been an early competitor in the world turret-tossing championships, subsequently so decisively won by the Russian team, with its unbeatable T-72 entries.

[@janrobertbos]

...simple answer...NOT...

[@davidsauls9542]

I think the 17 pounder was also known to be consistently and extremely accurate (though not with the one load they mentioned).

[@frankvandergoes298]

@@davidsauls9542 June 13 2nd battle of Villers Bocage, Sargent Jack Wardrop 5RTR in a Firefly fired 3 shots at a Tiger from 250m. The Tiger quickly went into reverse and backed off. They still don't know if they missed or the shots bounced off.

[@jonfallis305]

have read that apds was inaccurate over 600m

[@jmjones7897]

P-47 Thunderbolt was the most effective Armored vehicle to see combat in WW2. Jug kills everything.

[@robertmiller2173]

I’d like to see the evidence of this! History is written by the victor! My father was a Tank Commander of a Mk 4 Sherman right through Italy. There weren’t that many Firefly’s in Italy and the Stug, Mk IV’s were the dominant Germany tanks probably because of the Roads, Bridges, and Mountains of Italy. My dad said he saw one Tiger! He had a photo of it!

[@andrewcombe8907]

The Sherman Firefly, 17pdr anti tank gun and the PIAT probably saved the left flank of the Allied invasion. If the US had occupied the areas around Caen it could have been a disaster as the US had no tanks or anti tank weapons capable of stopping the Tiger and Panther.

[@BeniPress]

The firefly had the cannon to penetrate the armour of a tiger or panther, but it's own armour was just a joke even for a panzer IV. The german target optics were much better, so the bigger chance for a long range hit were on the enemies side. Most of the german tanks were destroyed by air attacks or self-destruction because of lack of ammo or fuel, that is a statistical fact.

[@Marcus-p5i5s]

Nope. The REAL Tiger killers on the Western front were ground attack aircraft and artillery. NOT the Sherman tank. NOT by a country mile.

[@bigwoody4704]

Good Post not the Firefly either though many Panzers were disabled by sideshots. But anti tank guns were left to M18s & 36s that came out in 43. And artillery also Patton even used self propelled 105 Howitzers that were used effectively in the Desert

[@Marcus-p5i5s]

@@bigwoody4704 yep.

[@frankvandergoes298]

@bigwoody4704 Patton didn't encounter a single Tiger in Normandy so not sure how he knocked them out.

[@frankvandergoes298]

@user-po3ev7is5w The majority of Tigers lost in Normandy were knocked out by Sherman tanks. 2nd, abandoned by their crews due to no petrol or mechanical failure or no bridge across the river Seine. The first recorded loss of a Tiger tank to a ground attack aircraft was on August 2nd. Saturation bombing by heavy or medium bombers destroyed more Tigers than ground attack aircraft.

[@bigwoody4704]

​ frank - hardly did the british either it was allied air power/artillery that brought their armor to heel.That incompetent arse bernard lost over 500 shermans during the Battle of CAEN - 400 alone during Operation Goodwood. He didn't have a tactical thought in his head. As Long as armies were mobile the Germans couldn't get set, build blocking lines,tank traps,calibrating artillery for distance and direction, blowing bridges - that sort of thing. This is what speed does and monty was a slug. Men like O'Connor,Auchinleck - who both won in the Desert before bernard, and Gen.Slim would advance . Patton and Bradley both knew the germans depended on horses moving their artillery. Effective artillery requires fire direction centers that can accurately place fires and rapidly shift them from one target to another. Those fire direction centers must be able to co-ordinate with other artillery units to mass fires as needed. Since America was the most mobile army in the war and it wasn't even close - they used this speed to keep the HEER off balance American artillerymen did not try to combat the enemy’s artillery by building bigger guns. The approach from the beginning was to build a better system and it worked. That was clear to thoughtful observers at the time. Viewing the Italian campaign, *Field Marshal Erwin Rommel commented, “The enemy’s tremendous superiority in artillery, and even more in the air, has broken the front open.”* During the Normandy campaign, *Rommel added, “Also in evidence is their great superiority in artillery and outstandingly large supply of ammunition.”* By any reasonable standard, especially during the latter part of World War II, the American artillery arm was very clearly superior to that of the Germans.

[@PepeLepew-rm9ft]

So what did USA tankers use ,basic Sherman or was it upgraded too?

[@Marcus-p5i5s]

They used the Easy 8. Upgraded turret and gun

[@PepeLepew-rm9ft]

@@Marcus-p5i5s oh Sherman was still viable but needed an upgrade.

[@Marcus-p5i5s]

@@PepeLepew-rm9ft The Sherman was NOT designed to fight enemy tanks. It was primarily design as an infantry support & strong point reducer. That is why they designed specialized tank destroyers (TD's) like the M-18 Tank Destroyer, nicknamed the "Hellcat"

[@mikepeterson9362]

God I hate AI-voiced KZbin channels....

[@wavegun]

They always talk about speed-armor-armament. Somehow 'reliability' never gets figured in this. Shermans ran, and kept running when Germans had transmission trouble on the big cats.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

Shermans broke down en masse during long road marches, like all WW2 tanks.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Source ?

[@billballbuster7186]

This was because the Sherman was a very simple 1920s design. British and German tanks used modern engines to reduce tank height and transmissions with regenerative steering which allowed the tank to spin on its own axis.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@nickdanger3802 According to Belton Cooper, who was an engineer and Sherman mechanic, 20 out of 50 Shermans could be expected to fall out due to major or minor mechanical issues during a 30-40 miles road march. During a 10 day period of the pursuit phase after Normandy, late August/early September, 20% of British Shermans suffered major breakdowns. The British Cromwell tank did better.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@billballbuster7186 US WW I Liberty aircraft engine As World War II loomed, Nuffield, producing British cruiser tanks, licensed and re-engineered the Liberty for use in the A13 (produced as the Cruiser Mk III) and later cruiser tanks, with an output of 340 hp (410 hp from the Mark IV version).

[@brucerichards6345]

The Allies were far more likely to run into infantry with tow anti tank or panzer Faust..Than ti evwr see a German tank..Hense the Sherman was more than adequate for its role

[@williamreymond2669]

For another point of view see below: Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Sherman VC “Firefly" part 1 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/oZ6wZqmcjrmVqNk Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Sherman VC “Firefly" part 2 - kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoq1d6ObZ5yGpKM

[@simonh317]

So much American BS. The FACT is 1 thing : On DDay and the Normandy breakout (UK- Operation Goodwood, USA- Operation Cobra) The only tank which could effectively deal with the `Big Cats` was the Firefly , as the 76mm Sherman hadnt entered the battlefield in significant numbers, they only started arriving in August on 1944. thus the legend of Firefly was born.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

The US M1 76mm also had major ammo problems (too soft) that were never solved during the war.

[@nickdanger3802]

@@TTTT-oc4eb Source ?

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@nickdanger3802 You and your sources you like to "debunk"... It is well known, just Google it. Even Chieftain has written a piece about on his WOT page.

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

@@nickdanger3802 It's well known. Even Chieftain has an article about it on his WOT page.

[@jerryrichards8172]

Its great to see war film thats not the same old film 😅❤

[@hemihead001]

No matter what gun it was equipped with it was still a Ronson .

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Some myths just don’t die

[@tedmartin5402]

But, the 17lbr evened things up.

[@zillsburyy1]

germans had better optics to pick off the shermans before they saw the tigers

[@sobobwas6871]

Really? One of the strengths of the Sherman was good optics

[@frankvandergoes298]

@@sobobwas6871 Not as good as German optics.

[@NINJAKNIVESTKO131]

Well there is one thing we can agree on about the firefly, it was the same tank that killed one of germany's most deadly tank ace michael wittmann

[@grahamstrouse1165]

Wouldn’t it have been more accurate to designate the Firefly as a tank destroyer?

[@nicholaspatton1742]

Fair , but it was still used as a tank in tank troops; it was the ringer so to speak.

[@0ldb1ll]

The first part of the barrel was also camouflaged to make it look shorter, along with a bulge as a fake muzzle brake.

[@claymaxon]

Caan was NOT designed to pin down German forces. Montgomery wasn’t a bold commander and was adverse to taking any risks.

[@Bullet-Tooth-Tony-]

@claymaxon it was. Go to “Was Saving Private Ryan Right to Blame Monty?’’ For the facts. Not Hollywood nonsense.

[@sobobwas6871]

? Have you read the battlefield appreciation or instead watched a propaganda film…

[@dongeiger8393]

Don Geiger, Canadian and proud what Canadian army accomplished in Normandy. The British and Canadian armies did not have unlimited manpower and Monty remembered the first WW and the slaughter of British troops, and was correct to try to preserve his troops, period. How ever the Germans had all of their tanks up in Caen. That meant the British and Canadian faced the Germans armour trying to reach Normandy. Fortunately they tied up the cream of the German armies and ALLOWED the Americans to break out in the south This created the Falais gap trap that lead to the slaughter of the Germans trapped there.

[@johndawes9337]

Omar Bradley: ’While Collins was hoisting his VII Corps flag over Cherbourg, Montgomery was spending his reputation in a bitter siege against the old university city of Caen. For three weeks he had rammed his troops against those panzer divisions he had deliberately drawn towards that city as part of our Allied strategy of diversion in the Normandy Campaign. Although Caen contained an important road junction that Montgomery would eventually need, for the moment the capture of that city was only incidental to his mission. For Monty's primary task was to attract German troops to the British front that we might more easily secure Cherbourg and get into position for the breakout. In this diversionary mission Monty was more than successful, for the harder he hammered towards Caen, the more German troops he drew into that sector. Too many correspondents however had overrated the importance of Caen itself, and when Monty failed to take it, they blamed him for the delay. But had we attempted to exonerate Montgomery by explaining how successfully he had hoodwinked the Germans by diverting him toward Caen from Cotentin, we would also have given our strategy away. We desperately wanted the German to believe this attack on Caen was the main Allied effort._ While this diversion of Monty's was brilliantly achieved, he nevertheless left himself open to criticism by overemphasizing the importance of his thrust toward Caen. Had he limited himself simply to the containment without making Caen a symbol of it, he would have been credited with success instead of being charged, as he was, with failure. For Monty’s success should have been measured in the Panzer divisions the enemy rushes against him whilst Collins sped on towards Cherbourg. Instead, the Allied newspaper readers clamoured for a place named Caen which Monty had once promised but failed to win for them. The containment mission that had been assigned Monty in the OVERLORD plan was not calculated to burnish British pride in the accomplishments of their troops. For in the minds of most people, success in battle is measured in the rate and length of advance. They found it difficult to realize that the more successful Monty was in stirring up German resistance, the less likely he was to advance. For another four weeks it fell to the British to pin down superior enemy forces in that sector while we manoeuvred into position for the US breakout. With the Allied World crying for blitzkrieg the first week after we landed, the British endured their passive role with patience and forebearing.“ -The American LIFE Magazine 1951.

[@jacktattis]

@@johndawes9337 Good on Bradley

[@hobbyhermit66]

Untappered barrels. What a concept.

[@rheinmoses29]

The optical equipment of the Tiger tank was generally superior to that of the Sherman Firefly. The German optics provided better visibility and targeting capabilities, especially in challenging light conditions. This superiority in optics contributed to the Tiger's effectiveness as a fighting vehicle, particularly in long-range engagements.

[@michaelkenny8540]

No advantage in having superior long-range capability in NWE where the average engagement range was c 600 mtrs.

[@pat0343]

In Close Combat 2 a Bridge too Far, all my Fireflies got knocked out or stuck behind buildings. We never had a chance.

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

APDS could in fact penetrate pretty much anything at any range - problem was it couldn't hit anything at long range. Which is one of the reasons the Americans rejected it. The accuracy problem with APDS wasn't solved until the 1950s IIRC.

[@Colonel_Blimp]

The British solved the problem by modifying the muzzle brake.

[@bobmetcalfe9640]

@@Colonel_Blimp I thought it was the Canadians but I'm willing to be corrected.

[@Colonel_Blimp]

@@bobmetcalfe9640 I was using the term “British” generically. As in non-American ally. ie. Air Marshals Keith Park and “Maori” Cunningham were New Zealanders but were widely regarded as “British”. Good on the Canadians for solving the problem.🇳🇿🇨🇦

[@fraudsarentfriends4717]

Tank on Tank warfare is won by the tank that spots the other tank first. The M18 Hellcat was the tank killer, not the Sherman.

[@TheYeti308]

Would need to have a big cat with the original mixture of hardened Krupp steel . The Germans had trouble importing elements to make proper alloys and the hardening process was shortened or bypassed all together in order to feed the fronts needs near the end .

[@stevenbreach2561]

7th Dragoon Guards?4th/7th Dragoon Guards,get it right

[@Tophet1]

The reduced casualty rate of Fireflys could be due to the fact they were allocated to the troops Sgt. An NCO with more experience.

[@rolandwhittle8527]

I thought it good video brought out some good details about the tank how the gun was installed and its disadvantages well made keep it up

Surely the weak spot on any tank are the tracks. They are usually exposed and once destroyed the tank cannot manoever.

[@brennanleadbetter9708]

Amazing what you can do with some modifications.

[@allgood6760]

Thanks for this 👍

[@walthanas]

Why show footage of early model Centurions (with a 17pdr) and M3 Lee tanks in this video?

[@ahhamartin]

A 7:12 I first thought it was saying they were referred to as "onesies" as in "one hit" neeeded on a Panzer.

[@stephenrglover]

Nice video shame that some of the footage showed the Achilles Tank Destryer with angular hull, open turret and counterweight on the 17 Pdr

[@grahamwoodhams6512]

The Firefly was a legend a great tank❤

[@greggweber9967]

Instead of going straight at the German tank, if you went in at an angle, then your front and hull side both would have a greater thickness, and the angle wouldn't be perpendicular. Only the turret face would be the same. The closing speed would be less.

[@walterblanc9708]

All the British tanks the firefly was supposedly a stop gap for never really materialised much in the war, instead they jumped a generation to the Centurion which raced to the end of the war but never fought and which to many people the most successful tank ever. Certainly fighting into the 21st century in some of its many guises.

[@maxwellcampbell4046]

It is a numbers game. That simple!

[@alericc1889]

The Fireflys had the SAME armor as regular Shermans which means the German tanks had no problem knocking them out.

[@markroessler1584]

Even a broken clock is correct at least once a day. 😂

[@confederatenationalist7283]

Maybe it would be more accurate to call the Firefly and Tiger self propelled armoured anti tank artillery. While maybe the idea of the so called infantry support tank should have been abandoned in favour of more, much more, artillery.

[@jcas9362]

While a gun had been adapted to the Sherman in time for the Normanty landings, the firefly was NEVER produced in large numbers. Total numbers produced were less that 2500 (probably mostly used by the British 21st AG, and the numbers being reflective of losses suffered), not a statistically significant amount compared to the staggering total number of 15,000 +/- Shermans produced between the months of May and December of 1944, mostly by detroit Arsenal. US doctrine called for "Tank Destroyer" battalions (mobile AT guns and specialty vehicles) to be the primary agents against German tanks, and that was true for the most part. Those battalions were found to be militarily unsound, however; 35 Tank Destroyer battalions never left the US, but were broken up, instead. One organizational account mentions that the mobile AT guns were massed up front with the infantry, and were supported at need by tanks and tank destroyers which remained in the rear. I think it's safe to say that British mobile AT gun killed the most tanks. The 17 pounder adpated to the Firefly was also successful field gun, but not as mobile as desired. The general opinion on the firefly was that it was a glass jaw. While it had a capable gun, it was mounted on a platform that under-performed. Adding more armor simply made the units more vulnerable. Fireflies did well when they were correctly used - and they were never intended to go nose to nose with the heavier armored German tanks. The Firefly had a stand-off role, based on engaging from distance to avoid exposing their weak armor to cannon fire. The Firefly was an adaptation to meet a certain condition for a finite amount of time - much like "up-armoring" the hummer was before its replacement by MRAP vehicles. The arrival of the Pershing tank (considered better than a Tiger, but weaker than a Tiger II), less than a year later indicated a shift in doctrine which would eventually lead to more capable tanks.

[@nickdanger3802]

"it was mounted on a platform that under-performed." How so ?

[@jcas9362]

@@nickdanger3802 Part of the issue has to do with the capabilities of the tank. Many consider the tank to have been under-powered. The armor on the tank was never sufficient, and adding armor caused significant mobility issues. Additionally, in the case of the Firefly, the gun reduced the crew room in the turrent, forcing radio equipment to be mounted in a utility box on the outside of the turret. The issues dictated the tactics of the platform. Unable to directly confront the German tanks, the Firefly was used as a standoff, ambush tank. The tank would fire a few rounds, and then relocate; much the same as later, missile-equipped light vehicles.

[@michaelkenny8540]

Wrong, By late 1944-45 17pdr M4s were a significant % of actual Commonwealth M4 in service in NWE. It is totally bogus to compare that number total Sherman production

[@jcas9362]

​@@michaelkenny8540 I didn't. But you sure did. The consumption of US produced tanks by the Commonwealth forces was not significant. The fact of the matter is that the M4's were produced in the States, in quantities known and listed by manufacturer, as are the numbers delivered to Commonwealth forces. They are as indicated. By February of 1944, 49,234 Sherman tanks has been produced. Of those, 17,184 were provided to Commonwealth forces, the vast majority of which, remained in their standard form, which favord a 76mm gun. No amount of wishful thinking can or will change that.

[@michaelkenny8540]

@@jcas9362 You seem unaware of the difference between total of tanks produced and the number of those tanks that got into combat per theatre. You seem to believe they all were in action at once and in one spot.

[@jerryrichards8172]

I didn't know the 17 could penatrate better than the tiger 88 😮

[@ramonzzzz]

That refers to the older 88mm KwK 36 gun, not the 88mm KwK 43 mounted on the Tiger II (and also the Ferdinand/Elefant used at Kursk and other battlefields later). Even the 75 mm KwK 42 gun mounted on the Panther had more penetrative power than the older 88mm.