Russian arms in movie "Defiance"
- Thread starter Chumlee Bumsnag
- Start date
Y2K: An ordinary gasoline-powered Sherman with the short 75 could turn a PzKpfw III into DOLL-RAGS with one round...... and do it far enough away that the 5cm on the III would be rather on the ineffective side.
As far as a Panther is concerned, they were a whole new generation in AFVs, designed and built particularly to turn large numbers of T-34s into scrap...... which they did.
Toward the end of the War, the Sherman got the Diesel motors and the British 17-pdr gun. Once they had that, along with that super-reliable chassis, they were a beast to behold. They could do a side-shot on Panther or Tiger for a kill: just don't try one dead-on. Any Sherman was just about 50% faster than PzKpfw III or IV, Panther or any of the Tiger series; you could get 35 to 37 mph out of one, so not much different than a T-34.
That 76.2mm HV gun had the same performance as a .30-'06 (2750 ft/sec MV). One million nine hundred and eighty thousand foot-pounds of ME is nothing to sneeze at.
In the '60s, we still had Shermans, the late version as above. We called them Fireflies and, when Kennedy was making ugly noises at Khrushchev, we were supposed to be getting ready to use our Fireflies to take on T-55s. Now THAT would have been right ugly, but it's like a street race: you run what you brung. Problem these days, as then, is that our Gummint has purchased very little to bring to the races....... and the Fireflies are all gone for target practice and the 6-71s are running mud pumps on the drilling rigs.
Sic transit gloria whatever....
.
As far as a Panther is concerned, they were a whole new generation in AFVs, designed and built particularly to turn large numbers of T-34s into scrap...... which they did.
Toward the end of the War, the Sherman got the Diesel motors and the British 17-pdr gun. Once they had that, along with that super-reliable chassis, they were a beast to behold. They could do a side-shot on Panther or Tiger for a kill: just don't try one dead-on. Any Sherman was just about 50% faster than PzKpfw III or IV, Panther or any of the Tiger series; you could get 35 to 37 mph out of one, so not much different than a T-34.
That 76.2mm HV gun had the same performance as a .30-'06 (2750 ft/sec MV). One million nine hundred and eighty thousand foot-pounds of ME is nothing to sneeze at.
In the '60s, we still had Shermans, the late version as above. We called them Fireflies and, when Kennedy was making ugly noises at Khrushchev, we were supposed to be getting ready to use our Fireflies to take on T-55s. Now THAT would have been right ugly, but it's like a street race: you run what you brung. Problem these days, as then, is that our Gummint has purchased very little to bring to the races....... and the Fireflies are all gone for target practice and the 6-71s are running mud pumps on the drilling rigs.
Sic transit gloria whatever....
.
and
It was a Fench 1873 revolver that Daniel Craig used ...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. ...
Zulu Dawn had the "P-14" as well as the SMLE (and also the Webley Mk VI) in it, for example ..
Russians and Tommy Guns;
http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/thompsonrussianmariness.html
It wasn't until after the cold war ended that pictures of the Russians using lend lease equipment became available. Prior to that propaganda required showing Russian equipment only.
https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
How many ex YSTPs remember watching the series, " Our Brave Russian Allies ", during the cold war ?
http://www.ww2incolor.com/soviet-union/thompsonrussianmariness.html
It wasn't until after the cold war ended that pictures of the Russians using lend lease equipment became available. Prior to that propaganda required showing Russian equipment only.
https://ww2-weapons.com/lend-lease-tanks-and-aircrafts/
Did Russia Really Go It Alone? How Lend-Lease Helped the Soviets Defeat the Germans
http://www.historynet.com/did-russi...ase-helped-the-soviets-defeat-the-germans.htm
How many ex YSTPs remember watching the series, " Our Brave Russian Allies ", during the cold war ?
Last edited:
Minor nitpick but the Firefly was the Sherman I (straight M4) or V (M4A4) the 17 pounder and a gasoline engine. We did use them in WW2 but immediately after bought brand new M4A2s with the wider HVSS suspension and American 76mm guns. Less penetration than the Fireflys but better in just about every other way. The reg force was using Centurions by the end of the 50s, although the reserves had Sherman's into the 70s.... which is still a hell of a lot more armour than we have now!
Also when you look at the stats the early Shermans didn't burn much more than other tank, and significantly less once they got the wet ammunition storage.
Also when you look at the stats the early Shermans didn't burn much more than other tank, and significantly less once they got the wet ammunition storage.
Sherman Is, Is with the hybrid hull, IIs and Vs were all converted, and anything that would keep a firefly turret in action would have been done in the field. The american 3" was adopted only to reduce supply problems in Korea, it was not in any way better than the 17 pdr.
Firefly and the 17 pounder gun,
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/Sherman_Firefly.php
The Americans did developed a sabot round for the 76mm Sherman gun, but apparently the round were always in short supply after Normandy.
The HVAP round was able to penetrate 178 mm (7.0 in) at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 1,036 m/s (3,400 ft/s).[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/gb/Sherman_Firefly.php
The Americans did developed a sabot round for the 76mm Sherman gun, but apparently the round were always in short supply after Normandy.
The HVAP round was able to penetrate 178 mm (7.0 in) at 1,000 m (3,300 ft), with a muzzle velocity of 1,036 m/s (3,400 ft/s).[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1
Canada actually adopted the M4A2 76 in 1946, long before Korea. In Korea we used M4A3 76s, with the gas engines, out of American stocks - I imagine mostly because it was easier than shipping over just 20 of our own tanks and having to supply parts for them. The Firefly was long gone out of Canadian and British service at that point.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/canada/m4a276w-hvss-sherman-easy-8/
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Canada/M4A3-76w-HVSS-Sherman-the-korean-war-easy-8-tank/
I'm not so much saying the 17 pounder was a better gun than the 76mm (incidentally the 3" is a different gun with similar performance, that's the one they used on the M10), but that the Sherman with the 76mm was a better tank than the Firefly. The 17 Pounder is a huge gun and the Firefly mounts it on what is essentially a standard 75mm Sherman turret. They did add the bustle to account for the guns recoil but it didn't add any usable crew space. The 76mm is smaller than the 17 Pounder but the US still felt the need to put it in a bigger turret. That made a huge difference for crew comfort and the ability of the loader to actually get the rounds into the gun. In Ken Tout's memoirs he describes how cramped the Firefly turret really was, and then gets sent home after having the breech crush his leg. The 17 pounder was also less accurate, particularly with sabot ammo, and had a less effective HE shell. The Firefly was absolutely the better tank when you're talking about taking frontal shots on a Panther or Tiger, but in most other (much more common) situations, the Sherman 76 would do the job as effectively and more efficiently. Reading tanker memoirs its actually striking to me how little time they spend fighting other tanks vs supporting infantry.
I'm not saying the Firefly should never have been made or used in WW2, we were never going to get 76mm Shermans that soon or in that quantity, and 17 pounder ammo was a lot more convenient logistically given we needed them anyways for the towed and SP anti tank guns. But in 1946, especially factoring in the diesel engines being available again (Britain and the Commonwealth preferred the diesel engine A2s, but the Russians said they'd only accept A2s since the rest of their tanks were diesel and therefore got priority on that model) and the better suspension, I absolutely think the 76mm was a better overall choice.
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/canada/m4a276w-hvss-sherman-easy-8/
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/Canada/M4A3-76w-HVSS-Sherman-the-korean-war-easy-8-tank/
I'm not so much saying the 17 pounder was a better gun than the 76mm (incidentally the 3" is a different gun with similar performance, that's the one they used on the M10), but that the Sherman with the 76mm was a better tank than the Firefly. The 17 Pounder is a huge gun and the Firefly mounts it on what is essentially a standard 75mm Sherman turret. They did add the bustle to account for the guns recoil but it didn't add any usable crew space. The 76mm is smaller than the 17 Pounder but the US still felt the need to put it in a bigger turret. That made a huge difference for crew comfort and the ability of the loader to actually get the rounds into the gun. In Ken Tout's memoirs he describes how cramped the Firefly turret really was, and then gets sent home after having the breech crush his leg. The 17 pounder was also less accurate, particularly with sabot ammo, and had a less effective HE shell. The Firefly was absolutely the better tank when you're talking about taking frontal shots on a Panther or Tiger, but in most other (much more common) situations, the Sherman 76 would do the job as effectively and more efficiently. Reading tanker memoirs its actually striking to me how little time they spend fighting other tanks vs supporting infantry.
I'm not saying the Firefly should never have been made or used in WW2, we were never going to get 76mm Shermans that soon or in that quantity, and 17 pounder ammo was a lot more convenient logistically given we needed them anyways for the towed and SP anti tank guns. But in 1946, especially factoring in the diesel engines being available again (Britain and the Commonwealth preferred the diesel engine A2s, but the Russians said they'd only accept A2s since the rest of their tanks were diesel and therefore got priority on that model) and the better suspension, I absolutely think the 76mm was a better overall choice.
I didn't even know who you were talking about cause I don't even watch TV anymore lol. I was like "That's Liev Schreiber, who the **** is Ray Donovan?"
