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

@karlhans6678

26 күн бұрын

War Thunder experts 😂

@williammaser

25 күн бұрын

I’m not even entirely sure how Sweden would get a panther and a firefly in the 40s. I think something went on.

@paulmiklasinski3185

24 күн бұрын

@@williammaser Easy. They asked for them/got their hands on them after the war in Europe ended. There is no mystery.

@williammaser

24 күн бұрын

@@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.

@paulmiklasinski3185

24 күн бұрын

@@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.

This isn't a comparison between the two tanks - it's merely a comparison between the cross-country capability of the two tanks.

@holgernarrog

24 күн бұрын

The cross country capability is one important feature of a tank.

@robertwoodroffe123

21 күн бұрын

@@holgernarrog so is quantity, and firepower, also backup , strategy & tactics! The Germans were doomed to loose

@fishyfish6050

18 күн бұрын

​@@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

@chrishoff402

10 күн бұрын

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.

@holgernarrog

10 күн бұрын

@@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.

Noticed the panther driver driver was faster so he had more momentum

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.

@matthewfindlay2242

12 сағат бұрын

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

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 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.

@arnonym5430

20 күн бұрын

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

@al-xo2cy

14 күн бұрын

if you look closly most of the test where done with the steel track

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.

@jacobjonm0511

17 күн бұрын

Was the Korean war before 1946?

@tvgerbil1984

17 күн бұрын

@@jacobjonm0511 M4A3E8s were produced between July 1944 and April 1945.

@chrishoff402

10 күн бұрын

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.

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.

The Firefly wasn’t exactly the most maneuverable Sherman, but it’s firepower raised concerns for the Germans.

Ah Panther 🐆 obviously is best. The Sherman got stuck by some flowers at the beginning 😂😂😂

@Swagmaster07

26 күн бұрын

Cope. Average wehraboo. The Panther is way worse than the Tiger 1, imagine not having spare parts? Lmao.

@michaelpielorz9283

13 күн бұрын

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

The panther is the A modification instead of the G

Now do the maintainability and winning the war 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.

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 !

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.

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.

Makes you realize how unrealistic Warthunder is, they cant even simulate ground pressure and tred grip correctly.

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.

@arnonym5430

20 күн бұрын

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

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.

@michaelpielorz9283

13 күн бұрын

Sorry the video made you cry!!

@drewschumann1

12 күн бұрын

​@@michaelpielorz9283 You should learn to read

@jonathanowen8389

11 күн бұрын

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.

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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...

"But he doesn't manage to get on deez rocks"

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 Panther is also better looking... that has to count for something, right?? 😅 Great video... subscribed. 👍🏾

@richardpeel6056

15 күн бұрын

The Panzer looked best with a small hole in the front armour put there by a Sherman Firefly!

@spikespa5208

10 күн бұрын

Aesthetics don't mean s__ in a fight. 10s of thousands of Shermans (and variants ) produced _that worked_ did.

The Panther higher horsepower engine and its large wheel made the difference

After the test the Panther should have fetched the Sherman one!

Sherman tank has a multi fuel engine ? I think not.

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?

@zhufortheimpaler4041

15 күн бұрын

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.

@ulfosterberg9116

6 күн бұрын

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.

The Panthers is an A model

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

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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.

This looks like a piss take

Warning: Do not watch this video if you are a Firefly fan!!

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.

@jacobjonm0511

17 күн бұрын

💩

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

That sounds like the very last attempt to prefer the Sherman to the Panther 😉 Logistics don't turn a "Ronson" into a tiger 😂😂😂

@namegoeshereorhere5020

3 күн бұрын

@@raka522Logistics made the few Tigers there were irrelevant.

@jacobjonm0511

3 күн бұрын

@@namegoeshereorhere5020 Sherman AKA steel coffin by his own crew :)

@namegoeshereorhere5020

3 күн бұрын

@@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.

Sherman was lighter and less prone to breakdowns

@jamesmontgomery9464

26 күн бұрын

That would be the real test. If your tank can't be where it's needed, or isn't operating at 100%.

@JohnSmith-lf4be

24 күн бұрын

The Sherman had worse mobility due to narrow tracks

@zhufortheimpaler4041

15 күн бұрын

the reliability of WW2 tanks was overall quite atrocious, the german tanks were not worse than others

@mustangmanmustangman4596

Күн бұрын

​@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!

@zhufortheimpaler4041

Күн бұрын

@@mustangmanmustangman4596 i am a historian, so I can tell you, that the issues were not the reliability itself, but the ease of maintenance

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.

@theholyinquisition389

25 күн бұрын

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.

@marijanmacek1244

15 күн бұрын

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.

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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...

@brennanleadbetter9708

7 сағат бұрын

@raka522 a KZreadr named RedEffect did a video on Soviet Shermans that might interest you.

Well German tanks were just better... If their transmission didn't break.

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

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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.

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.

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 😂

@ulfosterberg9116

6 күн бұрын

Thst might be true. But it is not what is tested here.

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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.

@rogercude1459

3 күн бұрын

@@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!

Anyway Panther is the best

Every Panther variant is better than Sherman Firefly there is no need to discuss this.

ye the panther is jus better

How could the Allies win the war with such a pickle 🤔?

@dank_river3318

26 күн бұрын

The Sherman got to the front, whereas the the Panther's transmission broke down after ~300km

@InternetStudiesGuy

26 күн бұрын

Germans built 8000 panthers fighting - 100'000 tanks on the eastern front (+about 5000 shermans) - 20'000 tanks on the western front

@HaVoC117X

25 күн бұрын

​ 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.

@HaVoC117X

25 күн бұрын

​ 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

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.

@al-xo2cy

14 күн бұрын

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

@richardpeel6056

14 күн бұрын

@@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.

@spikespa5208

10 күн бұрын

@@al-xo2cy *_Periods_* . It's the little things that make comments coherent and comprehensible.

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

@@richardpeel6056 THE tank killer of WWII wasn't the Firefly, but the STUG3

@richardpeel6056

3 күн бұрын

@@raka522 The Stug3 was never used to destroy Panzers and Tigers.

nonsense, Firefly could take out Tiger but no Panther ever took out a Tiger! so every brit will assure you Firefly is best!!

@herodotushistory

13 күн бұрын

This is off-road tests

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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.

The Panther is technically a heavy tank not a medium tank. It is just medium by name.

@namegoeshereorhere5020

20 күн бұрын

Classification was by role not weight. The preformed the medium tank role in the German army.

@arnonym5430

20 күн бұрын

@@namegoeshereorhere5020 Classification was mainly done by gun caliber, thus heavy tank= gun with >8,8 cm caliber

@namegoeshereorhere5020

20 күн бұрын

@@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.

And yet, the Panther broke down to often, so in the end the Sherman was more succesful.

The multibank isn’t a v8 Edit: that was a vk 3002 (m) in some of the tests not a panther.

@STHV_

24 күн бұрын

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.

The panther was a heavy tank type and the Sherman was a medium tank

@raka522

3 күн бұрын

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 ;-)

@joecook8352

3 күн бұрын

@@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

@raka522

2 күн бұрын

@@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.

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!!