Inside the Chieftain's Hatch: Sherman VC “Firefly" part 1

The new episode of Inside the Chieftain's Hatch is dedicated to the Sherman VC "Firefly" tank. In the first part, Nicholas Moran will examine the tank's exterior and talk about how the designers managed to combine the small turret of the Sherman with the 17-pounder gun.

[@JonManProductions]

...I can already sense the coming disgruntlement and unhappiness that he's going to experience inside the turret in Part 2.

[@shinybaldy]

wow those bogies sure have taken a beating! Thanks for another great video!

[@20jamjar]

Indeed. I think someone has been picking at them.

[@SkyWriter25]

Just pop a small repair kit and they will be good to go.

[@samuelkeller4745]

Chieftain, your videos just keep getting better and better, not that the old ones aren't already great!

[@AdamMann3D]

Love this. I have son of the Sherman but haven't started trying to Leeann about Sherman yet, so this is great for me.

[@Anlushac11]

Might this be the same Firefly we see in the post war video where a Panther, a Churchill, a Firefly, and a Strv.M38 are being tested? Cant wait to see interior and find out just how crowded it really was. Thanks Chieftain for another video.

[@3DBlockBuster]

Ah, Nicholas what a gift! Thank you for finding a Firefly. I can't hardly wait for part II! P.S. Any chance you might do a review of the tank you served on? That is also a very interesting tank. Thanks for a very interesting reviews! Keep 'em coming.

[@politenessman3901]

The 17 pounder in a Sherman sized turret was solved by the Charles Ruwolt company in Australia (with a recoil system that reduced gun extension on firing), for the AC3 sentinel, a British Liason officer (Col Watson) took drawings and photographs of the method to England. Claude Gibb DG R&D AFVs (later DG AFVs) was insistent that the 17 pounder would fit in a Sherman turret and when opposed, his answer was that it had been done by the Australians. summarised from "Armed and Ready" by A.T Ross

[@Surv1ve_Thrive]

It is quite likely that Britain and Australia shared some theories, data etc. Such as turret ring size research etc This was world war, not a game. Its not always one man or company having ureka moments like in a film. But if it really was an all Aussie design I'm sorry we stole their thunder. A lot of us have great respect for Australia, Canada and many great countries. All the best to them.

[@politenessman3901]

It was one company, the Ruwolt company and Col Watson took the photos and drawings to the UK and showed them around. I'm not suggesting that the UK couldn't have worked it out, just that they didn't - they didn't need to reinvent the wheel any more than Australia needed to design its own Beaufighters.

[@Surv1ve_Thrive]

I agree with your comments. I was just trying to ensure a balanced view to the frequent Australian comments that they were stiffed by the Brits all the time. I respect that there is no smoke without fire in that regard. There is plenty of evidence that Brits got just as much a mix of good and badly designed kit, obsolete vehicles, bad strategy etc. Everyone suffered. Blame our enemies. I believe you mean the Beaufighter to be a barb, I get it. Brits also had a variety of lemons. We were arguably close to invasion, physically close to Germans in mainland Europe etc so probably did get first dibs on newer aircraft. I mean no harm and am just glad we got through it.

[@politenessman3901]

@@Surv1ve_Thrive No, I don't mean the Beaufighter to be a barb, they were popular and effective in the pacific, so much so that Australia produced 373 of them, but we didn't design it, - just like the Brits had no need to work out how to fit a 17 Pdr to a tank when they were handed plans and photos of how it was done.

[@TheYelwing]

Spent the day welding up worn out halftrack return rollers. Now it’s time to binge watch these

[@alanhelton]

love this series. keeps this vet happy happy happy.

[@lavrentivs9891]

Nice to see that you finally found a Firefly to crawl into =)

[@larrybrown1824]

Nice vid. Looking forward to Part 2!

[@jsma9999]

Can't Wait for part 2. Sweden I never thought it

[@GeneralJackRipper]

JUST WHEN I WAS GETTING BORED, YOU GO AND DO THIS?? I LOVE YOU, IN A BRO TYPE OF WAY.

[@sasquatchishere7453]

Thanks for the informative look. Keep up the great work!

[@99IronDuke]

Cool, been waiting for this tank. Really looking forward to Part two!

[@moksq42]

hell yeah!!! finally my all time favourite tank...

[@MadnerKami]

+TheChieftainWoT Thank you! Very much looking forward for Pt 2 :)

[@THESocialJusticeWarrior]

OH NOES!!! I have to wait for part 2! )cry(

[@jamesburt3272]

Excellent - as always.

[@Ha22austme77]

Fucking finally. I am so happy about this video. Well done Moran. Top job.

[@crewchiefmodels4104]

jesus what happened to that road wheel!?

[@Crosshair84]

Glad I am not the only one who winced at seeing that. Did someone try to un-bog the tank and think you put the logs on the inside of the track?

[@luciusvorenus9445]

Crew Chief Models It was crushed by all the awesomeness of the Firefly!

[@genericpersonx333]

Could you be more specific? Most of the running gear of that tank is pretty miserable looking. Looks like no one ever oiled or painted the wheel rims and track segments since the war.

[@robertmoore1839]

I wonder if the damage was the result of a mine

[@blgarage9519]

Robert Moore probably not. There's a lack of any other damage on the tank indicative of a mine detonation.

[@TheErikWulf]

I really enjoy your vids. keep up the great work!

[@thedungeondelver]

Great as always, Nick!

[@WildBillCox13]

Great stuff as always. I'd like to see you examine the Ram 1. Those side hatches . . .

[@420choochy]

The inside the hatch part might take awhile to get uploaded ,just because extricating Chieftain from inside might take more than some grease and promises of hot tea . Personally can't wait for you to do more modern tanks ,don't care if that's not in WOT's normal vein of only WW2 and prototype tanks of that era being showcased . Always find your videos informative and fascinating ,include the wonderful dry wit of United Kingdomer's and it's a great recipe for quality entertainment .

[@lukerettie]

420choochy Chieftain is from The Republic of Ireland also known as Eire which has been independent from the UK since before World War 2.

[@420choochy]

Luke Rettie was that acceptable clown shoes ? Or do you need a couple hundred caveats and apologies to point out your a tosser ? Please do comment fuckbean I need to be put in my place over a simple caveat without annotation .

[@lukerettie]

Calm the beans merely pointing out what i thought was a simple misidentification from unfamiliarity with the state of nations in Europe. Perfectly in agreement with the sentiment about how informative and enjoyable his videos are

[@420choochy]

Luke Rettie nah I'm not ,I know there's a difference between parts of Ireland and other areas of United Kingdom that don't truly identify with being part of the United Kingdom as a whole . Shit even fucking Canada and Australia don't identify with United Kingdom , yet still go along with pretty much whatever the U.K. Says even though they're technically independent . Also I'm not a demented stalkerish fanboy who looks up wherever someone lives , I appreciate the persons intellect or knowledge they have instead of gloss over and find out every intimate detail of their life so I can be super impressive to all about an obscure persons life details . But hey good luck with stalkerish fanboyism , I'm sure he'll appreciate it , perhaps you can be like a bunch of clownshoed Elvis lovers who need to visit his estate to "get closer to him" cause appreciating a decades old dead man isn't damn well good enough , gotta follow every morsel and crumb of a persons life ! Maybe you can ask Chieftan for a swatch of his underwear, maybe one with sweat stains and Hershey squirts , you'll impress all your friends with that piece of memorabilia . Maybe some female will swallow your cock whole over it , being so agog over your piece of memorabilia . Now go fuck off twatwaddle !

[@lukerettie]

And thus a demonstration of what someone talking out their arse is like, mistaking cursing for inspired words and childish insults for the height of wit. How can knowledge of a fact be 'fanboyism' if it is a fact that has been stated openly multiple times by a person about theirself? However you seem to have decided that being offended and offensive about a simple comment is the correct response so I shall leave you to your cold, empty computer screen.

[@christiandtorres9843]

nice video!!!!! and its out the day i decided grinding the british "lean lease" line (sorry if mispelled) and cause im from argentina and we had fireflies!!!!!

[@dierobyn5717]

ChristianD Torres lend* as in a lease to lend something

[@HankLoremonger]

Fantastic video as usual, and a lot of great information on this one! Any ideas as to why the M4A4's production was stopped even though it was so popular with the Brits?

[@peterson7082]

Several. One of the more prominent reasons is because Chrysler took up production from Ford, ALCO, Pacific Car and Foundry, and Lima after they dropped out of the M4 production contract and needed to produce, along with Fisher Tank Arsenal and Pressed Steel Car (the only ones still in the M4 tank production contract by January of 1944), due to priorities it was deemed more important to produce M4 and M4A3s.

[@kangeegold7177]

Whenever I play my Firefly in WoT, I paste this into the chat at the start: "Were I unwed, I would take you in a manly fashion... Because you're pretty."

[@Neuttah]

Sounds like a wasted oppurtunity for "I aim to misbehave." Or maybe "Y'all see the man leaning out the tank with a really big gun!?" if you felt creative.

[@luciusvorenus9445]

Kangee Gold That makes you a big damn hero! Stay Shiny!

[@danndank]

1. Saw the new video; 2. Hit Like; 3. Started watching.

[@TheKsalad]

Oh boy, I can't wait for all the fanboys getting mad at the Chieftain when he says the inside of the Firefly is just garbage to work in

[@99IronDuke]

Given that the vast majority of the German Panzer divs were fighting the British and Canadian forces in Normandy, Firefly was actually pretty vital for the Allies after D-Day, cramped as it was.

[@franz_stigler]

99IronDuke I wouldn't say the Firefly was vital to the allies it was kind of nice to have a gun that could pen Panthers and tigers but most of the time you didn't need the Firefly because encountering Panthers and especially tigers was rare (for example look at the Battle of arracourt)the normal Sherman was way more comfortable for the crew and 99% of the time was more than good enough to do what they needed it to do.

[@kirotheavenger60]

Panthers were getting pretty common after Normandy, and besides there's a reason each troop only had 1 Firefly.

[@99IronDuke]

Guards Armoured tank troops often had two Firefly's per troop of four tanks. First Firefly I saw was a in a museum in South Africa (South African's used them in Italy).

[@jacktanner4948]

Debatable as to if it was vital, but for the British , many of the units lined up against them around Caen had higher concentrations of Tiger and Panther as compared to say the US so it was nice to have.

[@Avalon304]

Mmm... that 2nd road wheel on the first two right hand bogeys... its seen better days...

[@d-cat8198]

Love these videos!

[@cpt.pejelagarto6932]

I can see the angry words coming for the cramp gunner position in the part 2.

[@trymetal95]

Keep up the good work, nick! Hope you can do a Inside the hatch: Tiger II soon ;)

[@ValentineC137]

It'd be unfair if cheiftan doesn't get to do the Tiger II Challenger allready took the sturmtiger, jagdtiger, and tiger I

[@trymetal95]

And i know most people prefer chieftain's guides. Challenger's vids are often too lacking in details and thoughts on the interior of the tank and general crew comforts.

[@vitor19971104]

Can't wait to see him complaining about the cramped turret

[@Crosshair84]

I bet he makes a comparison with the Hetzer. Who will win for the most un-ergonomic armored vehicle interior?

[@vitor19971104]

I think nothing beats the Comet driver hatch

[@waynehankinson8210]

What a freak of an engine!

[@drendolnicar9816]

You should do an inside the hatch with the director of the museum ( the one you interviewed), and see if he fits in to the gunners' seat.

[@1mymm]

Please do a video on the panzer 38t oh please please.

[@anthonypeterson8489]

1mymm I can get down with that, call me a Pz. 38 (t) fanboy

[@sm3xym3xican76]

i was like, he did, and then i realized you said only panzer, not jagdpanzer 38t i was like sir

[@meteor1945]

Could you do a video on the chi nu tank the one thats in japan i would love to learn more about that tank

[@Pofamous]

The frequency of new videos is much too low, i really love to watch them but by now....i have seen all of them a 100 times....MORE VIDEOS PLZ, AND FASTER!! Thanks Nicholas ;-)

[@alantorres7916]

please please please please please do a in side the hach on the m4a3e8 please

[@speeddensity9543]

I am hoping for panzer IV

[@niklaseriksson3343]

They should do the Fury tank at Bovington.

[@rafaelnishizumi6330]

Sargeant Cookie they a vr inside a m4a3e8 and challenger did the panzer 4

[@danielm7794]

Niklas Eriksson they already did its blurry though

[@alantorres7916]

+ken nanodesu poi yes u know but I would be cool to see the while tank in detail

[@mrfr0st7]

Who is this "Nicholas Moran"? I want The Chieftain! =D

[@danielm7794]

if you can find a pz 1c can you do a vid on it i just love that tank

[@ronaldthompson4989]

Belt fed 7.92 go brrrrrrrrrr

[@cordingdesert9566]

Ive got a feeling the turret is going to be a bit cramped.

[@taitmcgregor635]

God damnit the suspense I want to see the inside now with the rotated gun and how much room it takes up in the turret

[@taitmcgregor635]

keep churning out the videos I look forward to seeing them

[@grandoldpartisan8170]

At the 6:57 mark, you say that the US Army said the engine was "full of bugs." This is VERY important. If true, the term "bug" for "a problem" predates what is commonly assumed to be its first use: a reference to "a computer bug" several years later. You ought to find the actual Army quote and compare it to the computer bug story. Glory will be yours.

[@douglasfulmer5483]

It is here... yuuuus..

[@volrosku.6075]

cheiftan you tease it's a basic M4A4 on the out side the good bits are inside please be quick on the upload i wanna finally here why everyone thinks you hate the M4A4C

[@Sseltraeh89]

Admit it, you're not excited to see the 17pdr installation, you're excited to see two meters of a tanker trying to fit around the awkwardly mounted bigass british gun :D

[@volrosku.6075]

i just wanna see him suffer with the recoil guard and the breach =P

[@taitmcgregor635]

Pavel Tobiáš I wonder how unbalanced the 17 is in that turret

[@happyflygon8096]

Imagine if he had to do a video on a lee, but the lee has a 17PDR in the sponson, and an M4A5 turret with another 17pdr in it.

[@nighttrain1236]

What was going through their mind in the USA when they selected rotary engines for tanks?

[@usswestvirginia1]

best fucking monday ever chieftain I love you, the firefly is so iconic to me cause of the call of Duty 3 mission where u command a sherman firefly and kill a tiger 2 with it, please for all that is holy do the jagdtiger next, love your videos though they make my day

[@g2macs]

Hello, someone has been using 'just for men'. Either that this vid was shot a couple of years ago!

[@NReFa]

Sweet, Nice chief

[@someguy5492]

We need one on the IS-3. It's the icon of the "inside the tanks" series besides the cheiftain.

[@mrs9935]

is it possible go inside the lone t95/t28 if so please do it. its so unique of a tank

[@origamichik3n]

I've read somewhere that while Swedish were testing Firefly, 3 of the Multibank engines caught fire and the tank had to limp back to base on remaining two.

[@Andytlp]

If true then i think the moral of the story is that even though 3 of 5 engines essentially died the tank was still able to move. Most tanks had one engine that popped an youre pretty much DEAD.

[@Ghostmaxi1337]

Wait why is there extra side armir to protect the ammo, isnt the ammo stored on the hull floor and not anymore in the sides?

[@ЮрийАлександров-ц2н]

Hey Nicholas , do inside the chieftains hatch kv-1 and kv-2

[@Handle423]

Can you please tell me, where the idea for the IS-3 with the BL-9 Cannon came from?

[@ishouldgetalif3]

I think i seen this tank before. might be the one they pitted against a churchill and Panther when they had them on trial in the late 40s. theres a video of it here on youtube somewhere.

[@hadrianbuiltawall9531]

Odd question but I'm not a tank expert. Is it possible to mount a main gun to one side / off centre with the turret crew on the opposite side? Gunner at the front, loader at the back and TC in between them. There's obviously a reason its not done, I just don't know it.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Impulse force. If the gun is off to the side (think the tanks in “Tron”), every time it fires, the recoil will twist the turret. Some vehicles do have a partially offset gun, mind, see the M18 for an example, but it’s only a matter of a couple of inches. Some autoloader vehicles such as CCVL have an autoloader in one side of the cannon, and crew on the other.

[@hadrianbuiltawall9531]

That would explain why "two gun" tanks fired them at the same time. Presumably, impulse force wouldn't be a problem on a fixed hull mount unless you're trying to fire a very powerful gun on too light a hull (M56 Scorpion trying to attain flight by recoil). Got my hopes up when I saw "Scorpion". Thought you meant the British air-portable light tank.

[@imablock16]

hey chieftain have you ever been to the patton museum in blythe ca and if not could you do a visit? i don't remember exactly which tanks they have but i know one is a m4 sherman they got a duck and i'm pretty sure they have a m24.

[@wotomatosauce2729]

Place your bets, place your bets. Will he be able to fit in the cramped turret to do the "Oh no the tank is on fire test"

[@chrishoff402]

One way to look at it is, Firefly's had a higher survival rate than regular Sherman's, and more of them were knocked out by infantry than anti-tank guns(anti-tank mine attached to the now vacant bow gunners position). Impressive when you consider they faced the brunt of German armor in Normandy. Would be interesting to see if reports exist from the British tankers complaining about cramped fighting compartment. I've seen plenty of American complaints that Russian tanks have cramped fighting compartments. Russians have countered that combat isn't meant to be comfortable.

[@duchessskye4072]

Well it's because the Fireflys main point was that it could fire sabot, a fact that made it used at longer ranges than the regular shermans.

[@SvenTviking]

The British army had a simple answer to bad ergonomics, train harder!

[@DanielWW2]

This inside better be miserable. Yes, we love you. :P

[@EnermaX4815162342]

The intro/outro is a huge downstep, content is aweseome as always!

[@Stylemaster911]

YES YES YES!!!

[@mrturner4620]

neato tank

[@mickvonbornemann3824]

Didn't the 17 Pounder AC4 influence the British on turret installation of the 17 Pounder? IE when the British consultant took the drawings back home?

[@djizomdjinn]

Oof, just imagining the inside of the turret is giving me leg cramps...

[@z54964380]

Can't wait for part 2 where he climbs into this tank and bumps his head every time he moves lol

[@hauptmannstrachwitz4343]

Any chance for the Tiger 1 to be on the show?

[@MadnerKami]

The Challenger did an Inside on Tiger. You can find it on your regional WarGaming KZbin-channel.

[@douglasbeveridge1861]

What does the V C stand for with regards to the Sherman VC firefly

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

V is roman numeral 5. The C was the code for a 17pr armed vehicle

[@anthonyslaughter4689]

Just goes to show what research and development can do

[@rafaelnishizumi6330]

do the is3 plz

[@RasEli03]

Cudent you make a vidieo on the marder 2! ?!??!

[@dirkbonesteel]

I never knew about this engine design in a WW2 tank. I want more, where can I see it please?

[@lkchild]

dirkbonesteel Search for "Chrysler Multibank" and you should find some info :)

[@MrJohanBD]

Canon noob here. Why did they feel like the 75mm wasn't enough considering how amazing the performance of the German 75mm were the Allied shells just inferior? And why the insistence on the smaller guns when the Germans showed how effective 88mm 105mm guns were. Was it simply for the convenience of the already established production lines?

[@peterson7082]

Mostly, though Allied shells weren't inferior in construction to most munitions made by the Germans or design, more rather high quality rifling, and more propellant.

[@Xr-pd2oi]

Not all 75mm s are the same. The Sherman had a medium velocity 75mm, which is it had a small cartridge that held a correspondingly small amount of propellant. The German tank mounted 75mm s were high velocity, in other words they had large cartridges with a much larger propellant charge and fired the projectile at high velocity, which is better for armour penetration. The reason the Americans went for a medium velocity cannon was because it was adequate for the mark 4’s and mark 3’s they thought they would encounter. It also would not wear the barrel as fast as a high velocity cannon and it would save the government money by not having to replace worn out guns too often, they must have forgotten there was a war on. The 17 pounder was a high velocity gun and simply had a bigger cartridge with more propellant and of course a larger breech to accommodate it. The reason they liked 75mm was because it was the smallest calibre to hold a useful amount of high explosive for anti-infantry work.

[@kirotheavenger60]

To help you visualise the difference, here's an image. You can see 3 different 75mm shells. The size of the brass casing is a rough measure of the propellant, and don't forget it's a 3D shape so if it's twice as wide it's 4x (2 squared) as large for the same height. You can see the 75mm round on the right is about 3-4x larger in terms of propellant than the one on the left. All shells are German, my guess is those 75mms are the ones on the early Pz.IVs, later Pz.IVs and Panthers respectively. It's the same reason why the 17pdr (76.2mm) was used vs the 88mm, the diameter of the shell isn't as important compared to the propellant. www.panther1944.de/Bilder/Panther/KwK/Panthermun_002.jpg

[@MrJohanBD]

Thanks for the replies guys!

[@xt6wagon]

why did they not use the later T23 turret for conversions?

[@Neuttah]

If I recall correctly, it's too narrow in the front to fit the gun. There's a Chieftain's Hatch article about it: worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftain-turretsize/?page=1

[@toastyroastyman8911]

part two next year

[@ChristianMcAngus]

Were the hull machinegun on ww2 tanks actually worthwhile? I note shortly after the war they removed them from new tanks pretty fast.

[@peterson7082]

That was done so because the turret mounted weapons were now being fitted with stabilizers, allowing more accurate fire on the move. Practically nullifying the need for a bow gun, as those were the only semi-stabilized armaments in a tank.

[@MrChickennugget360]

reasons why hull machine guns were removed from tanks after ww2, 1. they created a weak spot in the front plate 2. the Bow Gunners position could be used for ammunition storage 3. coax gunner was more useful 4. hull down positions became common during the cold war 5. Bow gunner added additional crewman who had a very limited job

[@Willgler]

YESSSSSS!!!! FIREFLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@cesaralberto6985]

After the Firefly please do the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo with the 76.2mm cannon!!!, that would be greate!!!

[@gruntmajor99]

Chesare Maldini not 76.2mm "3 in gun"... just a 76mm gun

[@cesaralberto6985]

Oooo..., ok, thought that the 76.2 was the US 76..., alright, thanks gruntmajor for the info

[@trainsrg8]

Is it just me or did he dye his hair with a touch of brown? Or is that just the lighting?

[@jblob5764]

9:10. The Hetzderp!!!

[@gusd913]

I wonder how well the Firefly would have done using the T23 turret.

[@kirotheavenger60]

Apparently you couldn't convert those to 17pdrs. The British got very annoying when the Americans ceased all 75mm Sherman production because it meant they fast ran out of Shermans to convert.

[@drkjk]

They got annoyed that production of the M4A4 was to cease. That's the version with the Chrysler multi-bank engine.

[@drkjk]

Probably would have been an excellent conversion and in fact there was talk by the Americans about doing so in 1944. But like many excellent tank ideas from the USA, it suffered from paralysis by analysis.

[@Neuttah]

You basically couldn't without making a whole other gun out of it because there was less room in the front of the T23 turret, from what I understand the Chief's article on that: worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftain-turretsize/ Also, by 1944, Americans are already looking at ways to fit their tanks with the 90mm gun, and there's no way the 17-pounder can compete with that.

[@sergarlantyrell7847]

So if the HVSS system was developed for the A4 variant, was it ever used on a Firefly? For that matter did anyone ever try fitting a 17-pounder in a T23 turret (a la 76mm Shermans)?

[@marsm9]

Why the re-upload?

[@isakahlback8129]

it's not 1 for the wot na and one for his private channel

[@nickliang9604]

marsm9 jus like how WG re-design a black T34 and a black IS-6 and re-sell them

[@ethanferguson1550]

Haha the 17 pdr does take up a lot of room now doesn't it?

[@carl5381]

No notification squad posts? You guys are slipping....

[@thomasleonard2564]

those wheels look fuck up on that tank

[@alexanderchenf1]

Firefly is extremely OP in Hell Let Loose.

[@joeroberts9502]

Would that be a Second World War German Kubelwagan two to the left of you? That's an interesting vehicle in itself.

[@Jesses001]

Oh, you are going inside next? This should be fun. The Firefly is known for being a bit....cramped, and we all know how much you like cramped, ha.

[@MrGeorocks]

You seemed tired Chief, you ok?

[@jasonscott8844]

The " testing " seems to have been heavily concentrated on that one poor wheel.

[@sethl6626]

It'd be cool if he did one on an M4A3E2

[@Nounismisation]

Great, great content but oh my god that bloody music!

[@Alexplainow]

Yes, we all wish all Sherman have Ford GAA

[@davidmicheletti6292]

Did anyone ever think about casting a larger turret rather than mess around with the old turret? Keep the same turret ring just cast a new turret that over hangs more on the sides and rear. Or am I missing something here?

[@genericpersonx333]

Doesn't solve the issue which is that the gun has to dip into the open space of the chassis so there is convoluted math going on there. The turret of the Sherman was already about as wide as the tank itself, so extra spacey turret without additional ring diameter would have meant top-loading/unbalancing the vehicle like the KV-II. Also, if you made the Sherman much larger than it already was, then the results would have been grim for transportation infrastructure which struggled to handle the rather portly Shermans. Germans had a hell of a time moving their Panthers and Tigers around, including having to have a special set of thin tracks on the Tiger just so they could fit onto railway stock. Big turrets bring their own problems and the British didn't need any more problems than they had already created for themselves.

[@davidmicheletti6292]

Eustace Stritchers That is true but I can still see that there is several inches extra space on each side and several feet in the rear for turret expansion. Even then I don't think it would come right to the edge of the existing hull sides. I'll wait and see part two and how the turret looks inside. It's always fun to speculate on these projects but we don't know what type of manufacturing tooling was available to the manufacturers in those days. Maybe they just needed to work with what they had on hand. I have to remind myself all the time that this tank was built to fight German tanks of 1939-1940 and not the German tanks of 1943. As with every project it all comes down to some committee that develops these weapon systems. Right or wrong they are nothing but a bunch of engineering compromises that over all were not that bad.

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

Actually Nick already wrote an article about the turret topic: worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/chieftain-turretsize/

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

You might also want to read the three part article about the US testing the Firefly: worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly/ worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly2/ worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/the_chieftains_hatch_firefly3/

[@harpomarx7777]

Four steel prongs on the front of the bow ... you actually put your fingers on it ... and then ignored them altogether. What are they for, please?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Not sure in for that vehicle. May have been added as part of the testing equipment when the tank was used for the S-tank trials.

[@zone486]

Was the added plates on the side ever a concern for being targeted or did the Germans never catch on to the fact that their was ammo their?

[@DanielWW2]

Well, the Americans had the annoying habit of painting it that part of big white aiming mark, I mean star on it... Yea, that wasn't the brightest idea of WW2.

[@Neuttah]

Doubtful the extra plates were all that easy to see in a combat situation. The stars, though...well, Hungarians did something similar by painting crosses over the driver's position, so...at least it wasn't just the allies?

[@kirotheavenger60]

Well I heard that there's no documented cases of those side plates actually stopping a shell, so who knows.

[@Neuttah]

Wouldn't that basically be "Armour doing its job" and, as such, not excessively worthy of mention?

[@Crosshair84]

Tank optics of the day were typically less than 6 times magnification. Just hitting the tank in the first place was challenging enough. You wouldn't even see the plates from 300 yards away through a 4 power optic.