Sherman Firefly vs Panther Tank: 1946 Swedish Test
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 чер 2024
- Watch the rare footage of a 1946 Swedish tank test between the Sherman Firefly and the Panther!
This video breaks down the performance of each tank in 9 challenging obstacles, including rough terrain, water ditches, steep hills, and snow.
See which tank dominates and discover surprising results that may contradict what you thought you knew!
We also discuss the limitations of this test and the importance of considering factors beyond just mobility.
Let us know in the comments your thoughts on this tank showdown and subscribe for more WWII armor content!
You can support this channel Thank You! - www.buymeacoffee.com/herodotu...
I feel like something is wrong with this comparison in Sweden. Sherman Firefly made the worst performance in this video, so it feels strange. But maybe I am wrong. I think War Thunder experts can definitely say what's the problem here
War Thunder experts 😂
I’m not even entirely sure how Sweden would get a panther and a firefly in the 40s. I think something went on.
@@williammaser Easy. They asked for them/got their hands on them after the war in Europe ended. There is no mystery.
@@paulmiklasinski3185 but Sweden was not a part of the war and I doubt any country would just give them equipment + the training or crew with out something in it for them.
@@williammaser You have no idea how it was after the WW2 in Europe. There was so much equipment to go around, some of it served 'till 60s and 70s all around the globe. Right after the war nations faced much more intense problems than a transfer of 2 anonymous tanks to some unknown destination. Some equipment was going in, some out, some was left to rust all over Europe. Children where playing with real guns and explosives for decades. People had no place to go, very little to eat, nobody was enforcing "a tank control" back than. Simple farmers use to "own" tanks, vehicles, firearms, you name it. Sweden was not an active combatant in the war, yet made a bundle of cash out of it. If anybody wanted to test any two tanks against each other for research purposes, it was as easy. They sent the right people to get the tanks, that was it. Shipping, training, parts, manuals, crew training? Are you kidding me? You took 10-20 best tank mechanics and drivers your country provided and staged any test you imagined.
Sweden has been conducting these types of tests for generations. The idea is not to discredit one or the other design, but to find out the best direction of Swedish weapons design. This is why the tests are as un-biased as possible. If Swedish tests concluded that the Sherman Firefly had much inferior mobility, this should be taken seriously and not shrugged off. We could also have compared to the t34 and the Churchill tank, both of which would have also out performed the Sherman.
Spot on! The small tracks on the Sherman are it's main problems with mobility. All tests show this. It is more a cross country test and not so much as a test of all capability's, reliability or maintenance by crew ect. Not to speak about the mass production of these iron coffins.
Apparently the Churchill, when it came to mobility could out perform anything.. It could go where no other tanks could.
A Churchill actuall took part in these same tests. It was better than the Sherman, but not the Panther.
@@TTTT-oc4eb The narrow tracks of the sherman made it more a road runner then a off the road! Panther was a concept copy of the Russian T34 with wide tracks and sloped armor. The Germans wanted a "wunder waffen" so it became more complex to produce.
Shermans like the M4A3E8 variants were equipped with horizontal volute spring suspension HVSS with wider tracks. They climbed well in the hilly terrains of Korea. Sherman Fireflies were based on older Shermans equipped with vertical volute spring suspension with narrower tracks and perhaps less traction as a result.
Was the Korean war before 1946?
@@jacobjonm0511 M4A3E8s were produced between July 1944 and April 1945.
Yes, Easy 8 had the better cross country mobility than Firefly, it was also faster, the turret has the better frontal protection too.. Firefly had the better armor penetration. The default APCBC round of the Firefly had 171 mm penetration. In contrast there was only 1 HVAP round available for every troop of E8s by wars end, and it only got 177mm penetration, the first batch were defective and shattered on impact. Meanwhile the Fireflies also had 5 SVDS rounds each with 239 mm penetration.
@@jacobjonm0511 1949
The Firefly wasn’t exactly the most maneuverable Sherman, but it’s firepower raised concerns for the Germans.
Noticed the panther driver driver was faster so he had more momentum
This isn't a comparison between the two tanks - it's merely a comparison between the cross-country capability of the two tanks.
The cross country capability is one important feature of a tank.
@@holgernarrog so is quantity, and firepower, also backup , strategy & tactics! The Germans were doomed to loose
@@robertwoodroffe123From what Sweden found during the test both the panther and the firefly was similar in terms of firepower
Sweden had generally very mixed views of the Sherman and it had more to do with the cross country performance as Sweden didnt have a whole lot of vehicles at that time, best Sweden had was the Strv m/42 which was already outdated when it entered service in 1943 and some self propelled guns. Both had a very hard time manouvering in the Swedish winter especially in the north. The Panther was seen as a better alternative compared to the Sherman but during the entirety of world war 2 tanks were not seen as important compared to the air force and navy which was the main defense of Sweden
In the end Sweden would cancel both vehicles and in turn wait for the Centurions tanks instead as Sweden was the very first nation interested in the design
A proper comparison would be 5 Shermans vs 1 Panther tank, because that's about how many Shermans the Allies could deploy for every Panther the Germans could deploy. Quantity has a quality all it's own.
@@chrishoff402 The USA had a bigger industry and did focus on the Sherman.
If you compare the technical input of steel, manufacturing a Panther is roughly 3/2 of a Sherman.
The Panther was designed for cross-country capabilities that the Sherman wasn't. Production, reliability, and maintenance were more important and it certainly wasn't designed for that.
The panther is just a better looking tank!!!
The best part of the Sherman was that it was able to be mass produced.
I don’t think we could do that now since all of our manufacturing abilities have been sent to China and other nations?!
This was interesting. Thanks.
One American field expedient in icy or slick terrain was removing the rubber track pads from Shermans so that the steel tracks could get a grip. Rubber track pads made the tank quieter on roads, saved the roads, limited wear on the steel track, were easier to replace than an entire track when the rubber wore down, and usually were superior for operational mobility. Steel tracs provide superior tactical mobility under severe conditions.
Besides, Germany had a severe rubber shortage. Steel tracks were Germany's only option.
These suspension was called "Gummisparende Stahlfahrrollen" and even the T-34-76 and early T-34-85 had only the first and last track roadwheel covered with rubber
if you look closly most of the test where done with the steel track
Sherman Firefly - unlimited spare parts
Panther - no spare parts
And such poorly-made transmissions that were so unreliable that around 30% of Panthers in any given unit were in repair at any given time and not considered battle-ready. This is, again, a somewhat meaningless comparison. It's certainly better than trying to compare the M3 Lee and the Panther. That was beyond stupid. But this one isn't really much better. The Sherman was an infantry support tank and was small compared to the Panther because it had bee shipped halfway around the world. The Firefly was just the Brits shoving their excellent high-velocity 17 pound gun in that infantry support tank's undersized turret. The Panther was a later war tank that was specifically designed to fight other tanks. It's design was excellent in many ways, but by the time they had it ready to go, their precision-machining capabilities had been eroded to the point that they could no longer hold the tolerances necessary for high reliability. Was the Panther a better DESIGNED tank than the Sherman? Yes. Was it better made? No.
Perhaps the narrow treads on the firefly could be partially responsible for the poor performance. Also, the center of gravity for the firefly seems much higher up than the panther.
No surprises here.
Multi-bank is not a V8, its a multiple in-line 6 cyl.
Yes, five of them, IIRC. You can see the spark plugs on two of the banks in the video.
The panther is the A modification instead of the G
It appears to be a Model A yes, judging by the exhaust pipes.
It can be that some Model G Panthers retained the exhaust pipes from the A as well due to lack of parts, although I don't have any data to back that up.
this panther also has that hatch on the front plate
It's definitely a Panther A. You easily can distinguish the G version on the side armor plate (only if no skirts are attached like in this case). D and A versions have a parallel side armor (except for the aft end. The G version has got a trapezoid side armor becoming continuously wider from front to back. This also makes its bottom edge look parallel vs the top track line. Another give away is the front. Letter box driver and MG hatch - D version. Letterbox driver hatch and ball mount MG port - A version ( like in this case) No drivers front hatch and ball mount MG port - G version.
The Panther is also better looking... that has to count for something, right?? 😅
Great video... subscribed. 👍🏾
The Panzer looked best with a small hole in the front armour put there by a Sherman Firefly!
Aesthetics don't mean s__ in a fight. 10s of thousands of Shermans (and variants ) produced _that worked_ did.
Definitely agree..the Panther was the best looking tank of WW2 ..or any other war for that matter!
Ah Panther 🐆 obviously is best. The Sherman got stuck by some flowers at the beginning 😂😂😂
Cope. Average wehraboo. The Panther is way worse than the Tiger 1, imagine not having spare parts? Lmao.
it is this awful american tank stopping breed of flowers Sweden is well known for Unfair!!
have a look at the width of the tracks of each tank
Makes you realize how unrealistic Warthunder is, they cant even simulate ground pressure and tred grip correctly.
facts one of the reason i stoped playing that "realistic tank game"
They nerfed traction multiple times to prevent people from getting into areas of maps that were out of bounds. Instead of putting invisible barriers they nerfed the fun of the game
@@justinkedgetor5949 same in world of tanks they put something comunity called "soap rocks" so that you slide of positions.. its very frustrating and nobody talks about it!
@@justinkedgetor5949
Problem is they limited to many legitimate spots that were great choke points and ideal places for Tank Destroyers that only certain tanks along with driver skill could access. Some maps hills in the middle of the map you can't go anymore, while others like Poland they flattened all the hills on the flanks. This has made the game play much more boring, less fun, and less tactical.
I really hate the recent changes of the past 3 years. Instead of maybe making new maps for high BR tanks that are powerful you ruin all the low tier battles too. So now every BR is the same crap.
The Sherman used basically the same running gear as the M3.
The Comet and Cromwell also outclassed the Sherman in mobility. Firefly was a stopgap.
The gun on the Sherman was outstanding
Not really. The 75mm was a modification of an old French gun. The 76mm was not a great improvement and the the 17 pdr was wildly inaccurate.
@@zedeyejoe The 75 did the job it was most often called in to do: HE fire. The 76 did the job it was designed for, was accurate, and light. The 17pdr was only inaccurate with the rare APDS ammunition. Firing the usual APCBC it was very accurate out to 2km. The 105, like the 75, did the job it was designed for: HE fire.
@@iatsd Thats it. Under US WW2 doctrine, tanks were not supposed to engage tanks, that was to be left to the tank destroyers.
On the doctrine did not work. Dang where is that tank destroyer, when an enemy tank turns up :)
@@zedeyejoe None of that is related to anything I wrote, nor your original claim denying the gun on the Sherman wasn't up to the job.
The basic fact remains: it *was* up to the job.
US doctrine isn't relavent here, and it sure AF isn't relevant to the 17pdr on the Sherman given the US never used it.
@@iatsd Well then read it again. The gun on the Sherman originally was not designed for tank to tank combat because of US doctrine. The doctrine proved to be wrong.
Montgomery said that the 75mm was all he needed, he was wrong.
The Swedes also found that the Panther's weight, combined with its very good power to weight ratio, was an advantage. As it enabled the Panther to "drive through" some obstacles instead of going around or over.
this is only about the cross country capabilities, which the germans had learned a lot from the russians. but the french had a lot of experience with the sherman, in actual warfighting , and they too preferred the panther: after the war,they equipped 2 companies with panthers left over undamaged or repaired.
This is a great video. I'd love to see the same test done with a T-34. We get a lot of votes for the T-34 being the best but it would be nice to see a test like this done to demonstrate why the T-34 was so amazing. If Russian tank crews had had the same training as the Germans or the other Allies it would have been a whole different ballgame.
..wäre was .😂
1..der T 34 hatte keinen Funk
2.die Besatzung bestand zum Teil aus Fabrikarbeitern vom Werk
@@paulmauer9405 No training,.. nothing.
How about the "Will the engine start?" test.
Or the "Will it shift into gear?" test
Great test.
War Thunder players probably should listen as no doubt the stuff in War Chunder (or Waste of Time for that matter) are probably way off the facts.
it doesn’t really matter the tank you have; if you don’t have the fuel or the spare parts for that tank then it just becomes a heavier AT gun that you can’t turn. Germany was always going to lose and using fuel intensive tanks especially when they were lacking in oil. So the panthers were more of an overall deficit. However they were well designed.
we suck
would have been great to see a comparison of manufacturing costs as well. 🤔
The results of the tests are not really surprising given that the Panther had much wider tracks and a better power to weight ratio. I also suggest that the tanks bogged down in Russia may have been due to due the reliability problems suffered by the tank caused by being rushed into service too quickly.
The Firefly in the film did not have a V8-engine. It have a 30 cylinder multibank from Chrysler. The tank can be seen at the Swedish Tank Museum Arsenalen.
One little problem: Panther tank final drives were designed for a much lighter tank, and lasted about 75 miles in the field before failing. Hard to climb that hill with failed final drives. If the transmission (which had a vulnerable second gear, because that was the one you used the most cross-country) failed, you had to remove the turret before removing the transmission through the resulting opening. Not an easy task. Part of the problem was that by the time they were being produced in quantity, Germany had not the time nor the extra fuel to train their young drivers, who were very hard on the equipment. Kind of like giving a Porsche to a kid who had never driven before and telling him to go win the race. The Sherman, on the other hand, had a much more robust drive system, and if it did break the entire system could be easily replaced by unbolting the front of the tank and popping in the new one. Panther was great in theory, but it was the Sherman that you still saw on the battlefield in Korea, and later in the Middle East.
Your right upto 1944 when the final drive issue was resolved and this is documented and signed off by guderian himself,the panther had many issues fuel,overheating transmission etc so late war models were much more reliable than early panthers
@@matthewfindlay2242Exactly. The Panther's reputation is really tainted by the teetjing issues it had initially, but by late war most of the severe issues like spontaneous self-combustion and the horrible reliability had been mended.
More weight, better traction. Simple as that. Plus more HP makes the Panther a clear and predictable winner.
The Firefly did not have a V8 engine. This causes the video to be a bit unbelievable.
Not a sensible test. Tank for tank the Panther is better. But how many shermans can be made for the cost in gold or time for one panther?
The Allied angle test may not have involved grass. The British reported the Panther failed their mud test.
So the Panther wins this contest, for the 100 hours or so before its drivetrain gives out? Then the Sherman wins? :)
Seriously, the British did a similar mobility test, but with no fewer than *EIGHT* version of the Sherman (different engines; different track configurations), against a Churchill IV and a Panther. Most Shermans did as well or better than the Panther, but in 2-3 cases the Panther did better than some variants of the Sherman. So what particular Sherman the 17-pounder was mounted to make it a "Firefly' on may be important.
Wonder what the American treads with rubber blocks and Duckbills would do, as opposed to the British Steel treads
Or the Canadian dry pin (CDP) track system, as used on the Grizzly Mk. I tank (a Canadian-built Sherman M4A1 - only 188 built) and the Sexton Mk II self-propelled gun (built on the lower hull and drive train of the Grizzly - 2000 built). The CDP tracks used a transverse bar for its tread, as did the Panther in this test, rather than the American tracks with rubber, steel, or combined rubber/steel track pads. The CDP tracks could be installed on any Sherman tank with a VVSS suspension system; however, it did require the change of the drive sprocket, from the American 13-tooth sprocket to the CDP 17-tooth sprocket. Many Sexton Mk. II’s had their CDP tracks eventually replaced with American tracks, probably because they were far more available.
Its not a Panther "G".
Panther G has a flush glacis plate and does not have a the Driver's vision port (6:42 etc.) Its a Panther A.
The track types have more to do with it than the tanks themselves.
This is a good example that what makes a tank good or bad can be quite situational. In this case, the Swedish were obviously concerned with the cross country abilities of the tanks.
If oversea deployment and field maintenance would have been the focus, Panther would probably have scored poorly compared to the Sherman.
The Firefly’s gun was good but the tank was still inferior to the Panther when it comes to armor and firepower. It’s the total package
The Sherman was also far inferior to the Panther in its aiming optics, and although the Panther's running gear caused problems in the Russian winter, it was one of the best of all tanks at the time. It also compensated for bumps in the terrain very well when driving fast.
There is a reason why the Russians had to wear padded caps on their heads in their tanks and the Germans didn't.
That multi bank V8 had 30 cylinders
What??
Diesel m4a2 Shermans of the soviets wont work in the frost with additives, as much as the cooling water of the Panther??
The Panthers of Piper crushed 100km into the allied lines during the battle of the bulge in the record winter of 1944/45.
Absolutely this, Ralf Raths from the Deutsche Panzermuseum did a three-part series on this, and mentioned that the Red Army used winter diesel and summer diesel whereas with the carburator engines only cooling water and lubricant could cause issues in winter
"But he doesn't manage to get on deez rocks"
Something which was not mentioned in this comparison:
The Panther was a better tank when you are working with a brand new variant in perfect shape.
However that was rarely the case in real life... the Panther's transmission was a weak point, as was its engine.
The Sherman's transmission and engine were completely reliable.
The rate of breakdown by Panthers was much higher than Shermans.
The two tanks had guns which were almost identical in effectiveness with their standard round... the 17 lber on the Firefly much better when it used the speciality APDS round. (5 rounds provided)
Armour on the Panther far superior... but the Sherman gun was still more than capable of penetrating it.
Basically whoever got the first shot was more likely to win... although because the Firefly was most often used in the 'overwatch' role, with a standard Sherman 75 going out front, the Firefly tended to be able to respond after the Panther revealed itself.
The best tank is one of many aspects required to win wars. In this case, it was the Firefly.
Of course the Panther won events based on traction, because this is an area where the Panther excels.
The Panther has almost 14 HP/Ton, and much wider tracks with a 10.5 lb/Square Inch ground Pressure, and the torsion bar suspension and interleaved roads wheel effectively distributed this weight along the whole track. This creates a superior track floatation.
The Firefly has 12 HP/Ton, and much narrower tracks with a 15 lb/Square Inch ground pressure, and a much simpler suspension system.
The US Army did the same kinds of post war tests, and the Panther, and even the Tiger, were superior to the Sherman variants in both on road and off road speed, cross country flotation, hill climbing and turning radius.
How can a take with less HP/Ton and 50% more ground pressure and an inferior suspension be expected to win a contest that only looks at factors where these stats matter?
When a Panther was working, it was superior to a Firefly, but often Panthers were not working, as it was a complicated design and the driver's skills was paramount in ensuring the final driver did not give out, the front torsion bars could break if the driver was not careful as well. This, at a time when finding good German tank drivers was increasingly difficult.
The Firefly took less maintenance, it was easier to drive, easier to fix, easier to produce, and crews didn't have to be at the top of their game to keep the tank operational.
Post war, everyone driving a Panther is a SKILLED driver, nobody is putting an inexperienced driver in a rare tank.
The lack of skilled drivers hindered the combat effectiveness of the Panther, a less skilled driver is not destroying a Firefly.
Those stats matter. A tank that is operational is better than a tank that on paper is superior, but not operational.
Sorry the video made you cry!!
@@michaelpielorz9283 You should learn to read
Good points. With regards to ground pressure, a much more accurate measure can be found using MMP or mean maximum pressure. NGP (nominal ground pressure) is far too simplistic. MMP was developed by the British. Thought you might be interested. Maybe worth a web search.
Where should experienced German tank drivers come from?
The vast majority of them had never even driven a car before and had no idea about technical issues...
With so many offended fanboys in the comments you'd think the war is still going.
Was there any doubt that the Panther would own the Sherman Firefly? In the end it is a Sherman with a better gun but still just a Sherman. Panther Tank Crews always felt superior to any Sherman, if that tank could knock them out or not. But there was 20 Shermans for 1 Panther....so those tests mean little to nothing because the Numbers made the difference.
The Panther higher horsepower engine and its large wheel made the difference
Performance isn't the only trait to judge these tanks by. WWII was won by logistics so in that case the Sherman was the better tank.
💩
That sounds like the very last attempt to prefer the Sherman to the Panther 😉
Logistics don't turn a "Ronson" into a tiger 😂😂😂
@@raka522Logistics made the few Tigers there were irrelevant.
@@namegoeshereorhere5020 Sherman AKA steel coffin by his own crew :)
@@jacobjonm0511You obviously know very little about the Sherman, it was one of if not the safest tank to be in in WWII. I suggest you educate yourself and stop making yourself look like a fool.
The Sherman was not a great tank, but there sure were a lot of them.
A better comparison would be the Russian T34 vs the Panther, since the Panther was Germany’s spin of the T34. The only think that made the Firefly and Panther similar was it’s cannons 17pdr vs the long 75mm.
If that firefly had the wide tracks of the Sherman ez8 version it would have been a different story because the ez8 version had wider better tracks similar to the panther !
Not to mention World of Tanks - lol. World of Warships is even worse as they seem compelled to include islands - and plenty of them - in their game. I still wonder how a ship can fire over an island to a target which is cannot possibly detect visually or even with radar and hit it - lol.
The whole time, i had this question in the back of my mind on why the swedes tested these different tanks, even the Tiger II in 1948, since they were still neutral at the onset of the cold war, did they want to reuse them to save money in their arms spending or did they want to know what to expect in case of a possible invasion by stalin?
both i guess. the french continued to use Panther for some time in the 40´s and german tank design itself was in many aspects ahead of its time.
Sweden wanted to test the tanks and had no intention to use them. The modernisation of the armed forces continued during all the fourthies and fifties. Sweden was comparable strongest in the middle of the fifties.
After the test the Panther should have fetched the Sherman one!
Sherman tank has a multi fuel engine ? I think not.
American industry made it possible to overcome and destroy German armor faster than German industry could replace their armor losses. The same holds for air and sea power.
But there were lots more Shermans than Panthers.
Some 'fury'
Makes you wonder why they kept using shermans when in Russia they did fine. But a country who could do deals more easily with a fellow European country finds the German tank so good? Didn't do too well at Kursk either. Don't get me wrong the German stuff was good - prone to eating trannies an engines - but good. But they went boom often enough just the same. I feel the rest was set up with the winner known. How were tracks set up? How old and well adjusted? How were the tanks driven? Any 4x4 driver knows you can give a 4x4 a welly full of gas an get it stuck. If you want. Just seems odd.
The Russians kept using Shermans because they really needed tanks. Soviet tank losses in late war were absolutely staggering. Keep in mind, that the Panther tested was a G model, which had most of the issues of the early Panthers resolved and was an excellent tank overall. The Panther was also designed with lots of Eastern Front experience and specifically for that Front and its challenges, while the Sherman was designed without much tank combat experience at all. It is therefore no surprise, that the Panther does better in this test. Post war American tank designs, which could draw on plenty of combat experience were much better adapted to difficult terrain.
Lastly, the Swedes wanted to know how a tank would perform in Sweden and considering that Sweden and much of Eastern Europe have similar terrain and climate features it is not surprising that a tank that was specifically adapted to these conditions would outperform one that wasn't.
Sherman tanks sent to Soviet Union had modified tracks (1st batch in field modification in Soviet Union, later factory modified according to Soviet demands, Easy Eight M4A3E8 got new wider tracks based on Soviet designs) to have at least some mobility in snow and mud.
Did the Shermans really get along well in Russia, or was it just the Russian tank crews who preferred them to drive Russian tanks?
With their narrow tank tracks, the Shermans aren't really suitable for the Russian terrain, which is why the German tanks were converted to wider tracks in the winter...
@raka522 a UA-camr named RedEffect did a video on Soviet Shermans that might interest you.
@@raka522 There is a book from a Soviet Tank Commander Dmitriy Loza that wrote about his experiences in the Eastern Front using a Sherman Tank. He also used the British Matilda and Soviet T-34 at various points of the war. He noted the many strengths and weaknesses between the T-34 and Sherman, but the crew developed tactics to utilize each one. Overall he liked the Sherman for what it was and appreciated the quick turnaround for suggestions or technical support his crew gave to the American liaison.
The poor quality of the steel on late german tanks like the Panther is the most shocking part and was not part of the test shown.
The Firefly is good for other reasons but I think the Panther is the best German tank of the war, however this test was a little pointless, what it really is, is a demonstration why wide tracks and large wheels are better than their contemporaries. What I would like to see though is this test but a Panther and a Churchill. Naturally the Churchill would be much slower but it does have fairly wide tracks. I would wager the Panther would win again but not by much
The Panthers is an A model
Now do the maintainability and winning the war test.
Every Panther variant is better than Sherman Firefly there is no need to discuss this.
German tanks are better but not more reliable. I think the allies went for quantity over less eith quality. Clearly the German tanks were better but the allies i think went for quantity over quality. I know the germans had better guns and armor. I think the allies went for decent tanks but alot more of them. Shermans were made to be light and more reliable
Quantity over quality also means that if I build 4 Shermans instead of 1 Tiger, I also have to have and train 4 complete tank crews and have to provide fuel and ammunition 4 times.
In addition, the probability of survival is greater in the Tiger, i.e. the crew can also gain more operational experience and become more and more effective.
Well unfortunately the quality argument for German tanks is a bit of a myth. Quality of design, maybe but then again too complex and difficult to maintain. Quality of materials and build, no not at all. Especially by 1944. Actually the only thing that was really high quality was the specification. Specifications don't win battles.
Sherman was lighter and less prone to breakdowns
That would be the real test. If your tank can't be where it's needed, or isn't operating at 100%.
The Sherman had worse mobility due to narrow tracks
the reliability of WW2 tanks was overall quite atrocious, the german tanks were not worse than others
@zhufortheimpaler4041 I guess u r not a heavy duty mechanic if u were u would have left the biased at the shop door. Wanting something to be better doesn't make it better and that's why the lost the war because to lost the plot as they were too busy exterminating the people they needed to solve those reliability issues! Oops!
@@mustangmanmustangman4596 i am a historian, so I can tell you, that the issues were not the reliability itself, but the ease of maintenance
The Chrysler Multibank was not an 8 cylinder motor. It featured FIVE inline six cylinder engines for a total of 30 cylinders!
This test didnt t over the day to day aspects or combat performance of the two. Seems kinda contrived.
The whole point of the test was just to test mobility and obstacle clearance of different types of suspensions and tracks for future Swedish armored vehicles development purpose.
It was never intended to be a combat efficiency test.
Big deal there were 50,000 Sherman tanks that won the war.
Warning: Do not watch this video if you are a Firefly fan!!
Mobility is fare better for panther.
nonsense, Firefly could take out Tiger but no Panther ever took out a Tiger! so every brit will assure you Firefly is best!!
This is off-road tests
Despite the cannon update, a Firefly is still a Sherman, with all its disadvantages.
And in a battle in terrain with optimal visibility, the superior optics of a Tiger and also the Panther would have been decisive and the Firefly would have had a bad hand.
This looks like a piss take
thats an ausf A not a G...
Doesn't say a word about cannons power difference.🤔
It's only off-road tests
Actually the 17 lber gun on the Sherman Firefly was better than the Panthers 75mm....
Sherman 100% reliable, Panther nowhere near as such, firefly out guns the panther, Panther has Good frontal armour, Sherman inadequate frontal armour, from the sides both easily destroyed! But the Panther looks a lot Cooler 😂
Thst might be true. But it is not what is tested here.
You know that the Panther's long 7.5cm cannon has almost the same penetrating power as the Tiger's 8.8?
And thanks to the Panther's much better optics, the Panther destroys the Sherman at a distance where the Sherman can't even think about aiming accurately.
@@raka522 the British 17 pounder in a firefly Sherman will kill both Tigers and panthers at the same range the Germans though they were safe at, A firefly took out Whittmann first shot almost a km so nothing wrong with the Shermans optics!
I think that the Sherman tank had the wrong tracks for this test: If memory serves, the Sherman has not only the rubber tracks for road travel, but solid metal tracks, and some with added cleat extensions for better flotation. The tracks shown looked quite worn, as well. The Sherman was not the latest version, the M4A3E8, which would've performed much better, and most likely tied with the Panther.
On a reliability/durability test, the results would've been reversed, because Panthers were notoriously unreliable, but also very difficult to service/repair.
At 1,000 yards the Firefly (APDS) easily destroys the Panther and Tiger, but Panther could not destroy the Firefly. At 400 yards the Firefly destroys a Tiger 2 through frontal armour. The Firefly always was a emergency cobbled together tank.
The Sherman firefly was actually a very bad tank. Because of the size of the gun it was extremely cramped inside the turret. The panther was much better inside the turret and due to the design of the hull, suspension and tracks it was a better combat vehicle. The Sherman was extremely easy to do matenance on and due to a better manufacturing process part's could easily be swapped making field matenance easier. Remember that the Sherman was designed to be transported across the ocean and had a restriction on size and weight that the panther didn't. The panther is actually a heavy tank and the Sherman is a medium tank so comparing them is like comparing a car to a truck. If I had to make a choice of which one to go into combat in I would pick the Sherman because Sherman crews had a higher survival rate but I would not pick the firefly because it had the lowest survival rate out of the different Sherman variants.
How could the Allies win the war with such a pickle 🤔?
The Sherman got to the front, whereas the the Panther's transmission broke down after ~300km
Germans built 8000 panthers fighting
- 100'000 tanks on the eastern front (+about 5000 shermans)
- 20'000 tanks on the western front
By mid 1944 the Panther had an average service life of 1000km to 1500km between two major overhauls or repair services (almost the same as the Panzer IV) . If not lost in Battle bevor, which was very likely.
The Sherman Fireflys with their crazy 30 cylinder engine reached 800 miles between overhauls in British services.
The Churchill barely reached 1000 miles, most of them were done after 500 to 600 miles.
So panther became average in the reliability department, which also proven by statistics made by Jentz and Doyle.
It's definitely not a M4a1 or M4a3 or a Stug iii which could do 3000 to 4000km. But the Panther became significantly better after Kursk.
In 1944 the Germans built 6500 medium tanks.
3800 Panthers and the rest were Panzer IVs.
The US built 12500 shermans.
And the soviets 14000 t34s.
Both nations built twice as many medium tanks as Germany in a single year.
But 6500 vs 12500 ist actually not bad for Germany compared to the USm
So 1945, who won then?
Absurd in both the so called performance and the engine comparison. Clearly its a traction problem for the Firefly and NOT a performance problem. The grouser will be the key aspect to that (slippage) and the form of the cleat/surface. The Panther clearly had wider tracks, better grouser surface and the better suspension (at a cost in complexity). So yes it would and did perform better in marginal traction.
Equally absurd is two liquid cooled engines in cold temps. No Anti Freeze and you are screwed. It has nothing to do with the engine and all to do with coolant.
And a Firefly was not an E8 Sherman variant which had wider tracks and a better suspension though not as good as Panther. When the Panther worked it was generally superior, but it did not work due to its complexity and maint needs (and support) vs the Sherman which was simpler, vastly more reliable and a superb maint support.
The Panther is technically a heavy tank not a medium tank. It is just medium by name.
Classification was by role not weight. The preformed the medium tank role in the German army.
@@namegoeshereorhere5020 Classification was mainly done by gun caliber, thus heavy tank= gun with >8,8 cm caliber
@@arnonym5430 We're talking WWII here, basing class on gun calibre was a short lived(due to MBT's) post war thing. In WWII the Panther performed the medium tank role in the Wehrmacht. If it has been in say the US Army it likely would have been classified as a heavy. Different doctrines.
Panther has a much better weight distribution due to it's suspension type and setup which also contribute to more even ground pressure + the larger tracks that also do.
Sherman is generally a pile of sht despite what murikan fanboys now seem to think (their grandads not so much funnily enough) It has narrow tracks and a comically high center of gravity and an obsolete suspension type that does nothing at all to transfer weight from one side of the vehicle to the other so very uneven ground pressure and weight transfer characteristics.
I will concede that they seem to still have the rubber pads on the sherman which probably doesn't help it bite into most of these obstacles, but I honestly forgot if it could be run without or not. Still when you are in combat you can't really just stop the tank get the whole crew out and change your tracks setup at every obstacle and expect to stay alive.
You mean the "pile of shit" your sort drove to victory because YOU couldn't or wouldn't make anything more reliable or easy to maintain? THAT "pile of shit"?
Well German tanks were just better... If their transmission didn't break.
Or the road wheel’s torsion-bar suspension springs; replacing just one broken torsion-bar could take a Panther (or a Tiger) out of the fighting for days. A broken VVSS or HVSS suspension unit on a Sherman tank could be repaired much more easily, requiring just a half-day’s time to repair.
@@speedythree well it's a tradeoff between superior suspension dampening and maintenance but the materials just weren't as good as the engineers wanted them to be.
And yet, the Panther broke down to often, so in the end the Sherman was more succesful.
ye the panther is jus better
Sherman seems largely crap.
Anyway Panther is the best
The panther was a heavy tank type and the Sherman was a medium tank
The Panther only had a 7.5 cm cannon and was therefore one of the medium tanks.
The distinction is not about weight class, you should actually know that if you want to have a say ;-)
@@raka522 The Panther had thicker armor than a Sherman and its 7.5 cm cannon you so smugly mentioned had greater penetrating power than the Tiger 1’s 8.8 , its all in how you class a tank as to medium or heavy, cannon size or weight, ask the guys that went up against it in a Sherman and see what they classed it at
@@joecook8352 I mentioned the Panther's 7.5, not the Sherman's.
It's not about how you personally classify a tank, but rather about the military doctrine of the respective country and how they categorize their tanks.
The Panther was better,like the gun..Like the Abrams in Ukraine..the best tanks in world?
Speaking as an experienced armored vehicle driver on multiple platforms, a big problem with this "tests" is the Sherman driver obviously sucks.
The tests are also not done 1-1, example, in the drive through the trees test the panther gets a running start, the Sherman does not.
All the tests seem to favour a heavier tank with a bigger engine and wide tracks. A tank crew aware of these limitations could avoid failure in the field. The Sherman Firefly may have failed to climb the obstacles but it was still operational.
None of the tests examined the reliability of the tanks over several days of more realistic rough handling. The Panzer 5 was unreliable, frequently broke down and tended to strip it's gearbox. In the Battle of the Bulge many German tanks were abandoned after breaking down while the Sherman Fireflies were picking off Panzers and Tigers.
ok so first want to talk about tiger sherman winning against tiger is kinda a big no 10 sherman wining against yes exept in some case most sherman didn’t have the gun to penetrate tiger armor and for the end of the war german where short on ressources meaning less quality in pieces but panther could actually be reliable some panther that where found in barn where still in working condition even 60 year after sitting doing nothing in a barn it’s not because germany lost that they make bad tech it’s because they where losing that usualy good design turn bad because of lack of pieces or material also people saying the tiger 1 was unreliable is kinda false it was reliable but when the shortage of resources started they started to became unreliable because of the pieces that where used but some where still in a pretty good shape like for exemple the tiger that is almost in working conditions in france it was still used after the war and it later when it « broke » probably something in the engine that well gave up from usure thatthey stored the tank and never touch it again
@@al-xo2cy The Sherman Firefly chassis was built by Chevrolet in Detroit, they didn't have any big truck engines so they combined several car engines and it didn't work properly, they dumped them on Britain. Britain conscripted owner operator taxi drivers into REME and they got this engine working. I know this because my grandfather was one of those transferred to REME on the day it was formed, he was attached to the Guards Armoured Division.
The 17lb Firefly gun in the Sherman Firefly was a tank killer, to fit it into the Sherman turret they had to redesign the gun and put the radio in a bustle at the rear of the turret. They removed a tank crew member to make space. It was a typical British bodge job but it worked.
The Sherman Firefly was the product of American mass production and British bodging but it was reliable and killed Tigers and Panzers. It's not the best Sherman but it had the best gun and Germans were ordered to kill the Fireflies first.
The The Ford Motor Company GAA V8 was the best Sherman tank engine generating 500 hp, while the Firefly's Multibank engine could only generate 425hp. The original Wright R-975 rotary engine could generate 460hp.
It's not surprising that the hand built Panzer 5G should beat the Sherman Firefly in these tests, but a tank rejected by the US Army and dumped on Britain, tuned by conscripted taxi drivers then bodged up to take a much too big gun in it's small turret ended up as a tank killer, killing Germany's best Tigers and Panzers.
@@al-xo2cy *_Periods_* . It's the little things that make comments coherent and comprehensible.
@@richardpeel6056 THE tank killer of WWII wasn't the Firefly, but the STUG3
@@raka522 The Stug3 was never used to destroy Panzers and Tigers.
The multibank isn’t a v8
Edit: that was a vk 3002 (m) in some of the tests not a panther.
The VK 30.02 (M) (war thunder gets the name wrong) is the prototype of the Panther and does not appear at any point in this video.
The Panther is actually an Ausf A, the second production variant of the Panther.
If they wanted a real test they should have had both tanks drive over a bridge with a 15 year old new recruit. Ask Joachim piper how that worked! Here's a hint "crash,boom" call the offensive off a player is injured. But, seriously this video has been put out by the laziest utuber ever. Please read some books!!