What was the best tank of WW2, and why was it the Firefly?

Wonder if its possible to go just 1 week without one of these stupid treads

>>33306590
shit tank shit thread

File: lavrin4.jpg (61KB, 525x319px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 525x319px

>>33306590
It was a combination of the turret rotation time and the speed of the T-34/85 that really did the tric-

Wait a minute what did you say?

File: 17prgunner_1170x756.jpg (165KB, 1170x756px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1170x756px

I don't know why I'm subjecting myself to this again, but fuck it, I'm bored.

It absolutely was not Firefly. It had numerous deficiencies, most of which were caused by the addition of the 17 pounder, or inherent to the gun itself. Including, but not limited to

>poor ergonomics due to badly placed elevation handwheel (pic related) and insufficient working space for loader
>higher dispersion during testing compared to 76mm M1 and 90mm M3 (average dispersion for APC and SVDS rounds fired in ten round groups at 6'x6' targets placed at 500 yard increments out to 2,000 yards was 7.48 mils for all rounds fired at all ranges)
>high incidence of breech flashback when firing SVDS rounds, occurring about 90% of the time
>excessive smoke and muzzle flash often renders tracers undetectable by commander and gunner and makes gauging effect on target and adjusting fire impossible for several seconds (this effect also makes engaging moving targets virtually impossible)
>muzzle blast requires infantry to maintain 15-20 foot distance from the tank
>gun imbalances turret to the point where 400 ft/lbs of torque was required to turn the turret manually on level ground vs. 200 ft/lbs for a standard Sherman (this was the maximum allowance, not the average), and 1,000 ft/lbs on a 20 degree slope
>gun becomes noticeably unbalanced with a round in the chamber
>size of the gun precludes the use of a gyrostabilizer
>Firefly never received wet stowage (granted, this is not a deficiency inherent in the design, at least to my knowledge)
>poor HE round and lack of a bow gun lead to substandard infantry support capability
>most effective anti-tank round (SVDS) was found to be grossly inaccurate past 500 yards, even when fired by experienced British gunners
>shortened recoil cylinders led to significant recoil force being transferred to the hull when firing, often buffeting the crew and throwing off the gunner's point of aim

cont.

>>33306590
>no machine guns
>tank
Are you literally figuratively literally retarded?

File: 76mm in small turret Sherman.png (456KB, 633x355px) Image search: [Google]

456KB, 633x355px

>>33306946
In terms of real world performance, there wasn't anything an Easy Eight couldn't do as well or better than a Firefly, with the only drawback being a slightly worse HE round than the 75mm M3.

And to give an idea of just how bad the turret in a Firefly was, here is a picture of a 76mm M1 installed in an original Sherman turret. This was part of a program to install 76mm guns in Shermans, but it was shelved until somebody had the idea to put the T23 turret on the Sherman's hull, and I think we can see why. And bear in mind, the 17 pounder's breech was much larger than a 76mm's

>>33306946
>>33306995
This guy is correct.

Firefly wasn't even the best Sherman of WW2

>>33306590
THIS IS A DISCLAIMER BY AN ANNOYED ANON. NO MEMEING ABOUT "Ronson" SHERMANS. THE T-34 CAUGHT ON FIRE FASTER (usually), SO STOP RONSON MEMEING.

>>33309103
(cont.) I WANTED TO DO THIS WHILE THE THREAD IS YOUNG. Anyways, back to your regularly scheduled program.

File: 1483900914001.jpg (1018KB, 1525x1672px) Image search: [Google]

1018KB, 1525x1672px

>>33306590

>Firefly

What kind of shitty new forced meme is this?

Quite simple answer really. No other tank had the blend of actual performance, crew protection and tactical significance as the Tiger I, over such a long span of time.

>>33306590
you mean M4A3E2 with a 76mm gun, right?

A simple M4A3 with the 75mm M3 or 76MM M1 is the best you'll get then. The only difference is which theater you're looking at since tank crews in the Pacific liked the extra punch the 75 HE rounds had compared to the 76. But some also like the better AP, and ability to use HVAP (If it was possible to get), of the 76.

The 17lb gun on the Firefly has some drawbacks that make it less effective while offering only a marginal improvement in firepower. You may get better power behind shots but you trade that off for RoF, ease of loading, and ability to get quicker follow up shots.

>>33309175
It could be argued that the Tiger I is the best tank as a tank (A singular vehicle). However, the Sherman was vastly better as an overall system (Production, performance as a whole, reliability/ repairability, adaptability.)

File: comet-tank-korean-war[1].jpg (100KB, 650x413px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 650x413px

Comet desu

>>33306590
The Sherman was the best tank in anything but purely low-level tactical factors (even then it has some distinct advantages like crew survivability). Part of this is the ability to modify the tank fairly easily to get things like the Firefly.

Of course you're just a Warthunder/World of Tanks kiddie who thinks video games = real life so this thread is pointless.

File: ww1-tank.jpg (158KB, 1003x525px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1003x525px

>>33306946
>>33306995

Providing an educational response to a blatant shitpost. Nice.

>>33309536
I'm stupid like that.

File: M3 75mm APCBC vs Tiger.png (182KB, 656x532px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 656x532px

>>33309369
>It could be argued that the Tiger I is the best tank as a tank

The argument could certainly be made, although the Tiger doesn't outclass the Sherman quite as far as people think it does. The Tiger's hatches are poorly placed, and the gunner's optics suite, while excellent, is not as extensive or versatile as a Sherman's. Plus, I recall the Soviets testing the 75mm guns of their M4A2s against a captured Tiger. The results were

>Side, shell type M-61, distance 400 m. Result: penetration, spalling inside in an area of 300 mm by 300 mm
>Side, shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: penetration, minor spalling on entrance and exit.
>Side: shell type M-72, distance 625 m. Result: same as above.
>Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650 m. Result: dent 50 mm deep, 140 mm diameter. Penetration of the turret platform.
>Turret: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: dent 40mm deep, 120mm diameter.
>Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: Penetration. Shell knocked out a cork-like section of armour.
>Side: shell type M-61, distance 650. Result: same as above.

And just so everyone knows I'm not pulling things out of my ass, a photo of the aftermath.

File: T29.Fort_Knox.0007x8yr.jpg (82KB, 800x400px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 800x400px

T29 best tank

>>33309175
In actual performance it was maintenance intensive and a major resource hog. Tiger production (and German AFV production in general really) was the height of stupidity considering the type of war they were fighting, and even more so when compared to American and Soviet production.

Tiger I's only truly excellent feature was its gun, and even that was let down by the limited fire control system. No gunner's periscope, no secondary optic that would allow for gun laying while from a turret down position, no power traverse controls for the commander, and a traverse system that was slower than snail shit.

>>33309408
Good luck getting out in a hurry through those rathole hatches if the tank gets hit

>>33309694
You might like this story I read of an under strength Sherman Platoon taking on a Tiger


>Lieutenant Homer Wilkes, 747th Tank Battalion, Sherman platoon vs. Tiger, 20 November, 1944:

>“At this time a Mark VI engaged three Company A tanks in a gun battle at the range of 2,000 yards, the Tiger having an 88mm, high muzzle velocity gun. One Company A tank was commanded by Sergeant Herman Deaver. Deaver first fired a high explosive, fuse quick, hitting and breaking one track. He then turned to armor piercing, which failed to damage the Tiger. The foe was slowly traversing for the purpose of engaging the three Americans, therefore the Company A men used their only recourse. They commenced pounding his turret with high explosives, which jarred the tank and gave the crew concussion. The German knocked out two of the tanks and shot the vane sight off Deaver’s turret, located in front of the commander’s head, without hitting Deaver. Eventually the Mark VI ceased firing. Then Deaver set him aflame using white phosphorous. Later, Deaver inspected the tank to find all the turret crew dead”.

And this isn't the only instance I've come across of Shermans just mag dumping HE rounds on German heavies and killing their crews through sheer concussive force. For some reason, that image amuses me to no end. Though bear in mind, the surviving tank alone did fire about 30 HE rounds, which should make the point clear that this was not a tactic of first resort.

>>33309770
>Tiger production was the height of stupidity

This is so often understated. The average production time alone was ridiculous, something like 300,000 man hours. A T-34, at its most labor intensive, could be built in a sixth of the time, and a Sherman in a thirtieth.

Tigers came from the Henschel Werk III facility in Kassel, Germany and from no other. That factory was relatively inefficient, and had an average output of only 60 tanks per month. Highest monthly goal was 95 units, and highest actual monthly production was 104 units. Tigers were constantly being modified on the production run, with no block phasing system to keep it all organized and under control. This meant that a Tiger coming off the line tended to be different to some degree than one just a few units behind it. This served to strain further Germany's logistics system, which was already relatively poor to begin with, and contributed little, if anything, to the vehicle's combat effectiveness. And even without the manufacturers constantly fucking with the design (often at the request of the Wehrmacht, in their defense), Henschel's production methods were inherently inefficient. The assembly process was complex and station-based, which necessitated the use of skilled labor, which in turn shrinks your labor pool. In addition, the factory only had about 1,000 machine tools, and few of them were specialized, meaning you'd often be using the same tool to work on multiple parts. This could and did present numerous bottlenecks in production.

Chrysler Tank Arsenal and Nizhny Tagil alone put all this to shame, and they were merely the largest and most efficient parts in two very large, well oiled production apparatuses.

>>33309485
I've seen the damn thing get penetrated after being ambushed by a Panther, and not only did the hit not cause a catastrophic ammo fire, but two of the crew survived and managed to escape. Granted, the commander lost one of his legs at the knee, the poor bastard.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6LqB-RYUvY

After having been told for years that the Sherman was a death trap and a fire hazard on tracks, learning how sturdy and survivable this thing actually was astonished me.

>>33306590
>not the cromwell
Sherman's have to be #2, though because of their weaker guns for the germans

>>33310731
Read up on Exercise Dracula and you'll discover why what you just said is ridiculous. The British themselves admitted that the Sherman shits all over the Cromwell.

>>33310765
Someone has to take out the germans, you can't just talk about them vs each other

>>33310918
Wait, I'm retarded
I meant the firefly not the cromwell

>>33310918
I'm not saying either side was bad at killing Germans. The British did performed admirably, and so did we, and the Cromwell and the Sherman both did their jobs and did them well. But in a pure comparison between one tank and another, the Sherman was the better, and the British came to that exact conclusion.

>>33309744
i hate all the faggots that paid 40 dollars for this in war thunder and mop up every game

>>33311054
I am one of those faggots
eat my APCR, nigger

File: panzer-8-pzkpfw-viii-maus.jpg (56KB, 800x473px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x473px

fuck u niggas
im dat gorilla dick nigga i make dyke pussy wet

File: maus shrekt.jpg (29KB, 600x321px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x321px

>>33311093
Oops

>>33310993
Only if Shermans were pitted against fireflies, but then we'd have fantasy scenarios where Tigers eat up everybody else.
Sherman's are pretty unreliable against Panthers and Tiger tanks.

>>33311141
Not really. Shermans maintained positive kill ratios against both of those tanks, and utterly stomped the Panther in particular at Arracourt.

Also, what do you mean by pitting Sherman against Firefly? Sherman IS Firefly, and vice versa. Sherman is an umbrella term for a family of tanks, of which Firefly is a member.

If you're talking about comparing it to other variants, it depends on which variant you're talking about it. An Easy 8 offers sufficient AT performance without the penalties suffered by the Firefly in terms of accuracy, rate of fire, ergonomics, and infantry support capability. A bare bones 75mm Sherman can't match a Firefly in terms of AT capability, but a Firefly can't match a 75mm when it comes to pretty much anything else. And this is ignoring the fact that, as I said, even 75mm Shermans could and did knock out Tigers and Panthers. Other anons have already made that point ITT.

File: pzviii.jpg (58KB, 620x337px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 620x337px

>>33311093
>>33311136
I wonder what the guy who thought the hammer and sickle on the hull was going to fool anybody was smoking.

>>33311226
I think easy 8 is a little late, otherwise I'd say something like the comet. Also, the 75mm gun definitely wasn't good enough given the rounds they were issued.

>>33311405
That is to say, that close range with the right rounds it would have been good enough, but they weren't given them. Which is why that kind of thing lends to fantasy shit like "what if the germans could make reliable panthers"

>>33311405
Easy 8 wasn't late, and this actually ties into something I forgot when I wrote these walls of text >>33306946 >>33306995

A big part of why Firefly has the reputation that it does is that when D-Day went down, the British actually brought the Firefly with them, whereas we left the 76mm Shermans behind.

Why? Well, as I indicated and as this anon >>33309694 so helpfully pointed out, 75mm Shermans had already proven themselves against Tigers in Africa and Italy, and although the US was aware of the Panther, we were under the assumption that it was another limited issue breakthrough tank like the Tiger. This assumption of course turned out to be false, and the Panther supplemented the Panzer IV as one of Germany's standard medium tanks. But it was for this reason, as well as a desire to not needlessly complicate logistics and training with a new gun and new ammunition, that US armor units expressed no desire for 76mm Shermans, and in fact actively resisted their addition their ranks.

How does this relate to the Firefly and its reputation? Well, simply put, due to the lack of perceived need for the 76mm and the subsequent decision to leave them in England when it came time for D-Day, the only thing in France that could kill a Panther frontally was a tank destroyer or a Firefly.


TL;DR Easy Eight wasn't late in terms of development. We just didn't bring them, for somewhat justifiable reasons.

>>33311093

shut the fuck up test-tube gub-gub snailman.

>>33311484
Should have, could have, would have. We could have had Tigers that were reliable and germans that weren't fooled and gimped. Maybe you should jump on the T-34 or T-34-85 train instead? Or is "logistics" the only thing that matters to you, except when it doesn't?

Although it is interesting to hear that the A3 variant wasn't actually that late.

>>33311594
Anon, what the hell are you talking about?

File: 101752.jpg (135KB, 859x960px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 859x960px

The A30 Challenger was:
Faster
Better armored
Lower
Better engine

>>33311594
Actually the the Tiger was a very reliable tank by 1940's standard. You may be thinking of the Pzkw V "Panther" which, while undoubtedly the best medium tank of WWII (when functioning as intended!) had a notoriously shitty final drive and transmission that often rendered them ineffective. Actually I believe more Panthers were destroyed by their own crew to prevent the Soviets from capturing them than were lost in combat, but I may be confusing it with the Tiger II "Konigstiger"

>>33311698
>while undoubtedly the best medium tank of WWII

It was nothing of the sort, even when it was functioning as intended. Armor, firepower, and off-road mobility were its only virtues, and each of these had significant drawbacks.

The gun was let down by a substandard HE round and a poor optics suite for the gunner. The high level of mobility came at the cost of high mechanical complexity and led to the suspension and running gear being highly maintenance intensive. The torsion bars were also partially responsible for the tank's excessive height and lack of headroom in the turret. The steel used in the armor was relatively brittle, and the side armor was laughably thin considering how effective the glacis plate was.

I'm not eve going to get into the poor ergonomics, needless mechanical complexity (reference the turret traverse, which would have made Rube Goldberg jealous) and the fact that the thing was a rolling fire hazard.

File: best tank.jpg (199KB, 1280x856px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 1280x856px

>>33306590
>best tank thread
>no tigers
>>33306658
shitty tank thread indeed

>>33306590
Your misspelled IS-2.

File: 67467467467457.jpg (63KB, 482x263px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 482x263px

>>33311698
>Panther
>(((medium))) tank
Here. I present you (((heavy))) tank. According to German classification.

>>33309103
wasn't the t-34 a diesel, how does a diesel burning quicker than a gasoline powered tank?

>>33314366

Because it wasn't the fuel that brewed up, it was the main gun propellant.

>>33311619
If logistics matter and realism (what happened) matters, then saying they could have used the e8 early doesn't matter because they didn't. If it doesn't matter, then anyone can say "what if the germans had more tigers?"

>>33314366
Well firstly, it was usually the propellant charge in the ammunition that caused any tank to suffer a catastrophic explosion. Soviet crews who worked with both T-34s and Lend Lease Shermans noted that Soviet rounds tended to cook off faster and more violently, but I don't know the reason for that.

That being said, diesel fuel did cause the T-34 some trouble, but not the way you would expect. The T-34 has two fuel tanks in the crew compartment, and as the tanks are emptied out, fumes are of course left behind. Whenever a tank with half empty fuel tanks was penetrated from the side, it would usually start a fire and kill the hull crew.

>>33314434
I never said anybody COULD do anything. And you're talking as if 76mm Shermans were never introduced at all. They were brought up after US forces started moving inland after Normandy, and especially after the Ardennes.

>>33306590
you could have picked a better photo or was that your great grandfather laddie?