Easy 8 vs Firefly, what is the better Sherman variant?

Easy 8. Obviously.

The 17pdr arguably had better penetration, but the turret really didn't have enough room for it. This is a bigger problem than fanbois on the internet can comprehend, much less admit. The 76mm was totally capable for the job, and you could actually load it quickly.

Plus the Easy 8 had a whole pack of other improvements too, and didn't have the multi-bank engine which was a shitshow.

You don't have to be a burger to know that the e8 was a better tank than the Firefly.

Attached: 1437119301889.jpg (700x370, 75K)

it wasnt ordnance branch that put the hold on it, but it was armored force. they didn't want a cramped tank because they were supposed to be the ones fighting in them.

>Which is better
>A different gun or different suspension

Attached: 1536968615052.jpg (757x688, 272K)

What is the difference between 75 and 76-mm? Is the latter really that large?

>The Sherman variant with a 17pdr is basically a Sherman with a 17pdr and a powered turret.

You clearly have wisdom beyond your years.

Neither, Panzer IV.

>multi-bank engine which was a shitshow.

I keep seeing people on Jow Forums saying it was bad but whenever I look at primary sources on it I see the opposite.

Care to enlighten why its so bad?

>What is the difference between 75 and 76-mm?
roughly one millimeter, or .039 inches

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/75_mm_Gun_M2/M3/M6
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1

Educate yourself. Even shitipedia can give you that answer.

Its mostly shell velocity and the calibres of the gun.

Please, wikipedia gives fuck all when it comes to breech dimension, placement and overall turret layout .

Are you being incredibly vague in asking for information?

You asked what the difference between 75 and 76. I posted babbys first page on the difference because you're obviously clueless.

Obviously you're asking for the differences in 75mm and 76mm armed tanks which is a very complex question.

Lets look at the M4A3. You have the M4A3(75), M4A3(75)W and M4A3(76)W for a start. Then we have to look at early, mid and late production for differences and changes which were frequent.

And then we have to ask about which Sherman turrets you want to look at is it the D50878? D78461? High bustle? Low bustle? And then we have to look at which time of production for the D82081.

And now you probably don't have a fucking clue anymore.

Attached: Sherman76.jpg (2805x2211, 697K)

M3 75mm gun was a medium velocity cannon
it carried an impressive HE payload but had lack luster penetration

M1 76mm was a high velocity gun, it only carried half as much HE filler but its shell travelled much faster
a 75mm shell would penetrate 90mm of steel at 500m, but the 76mm would penetrate 120mm of steel at the same range
the reason why the M1 had so much more velocity was because it carried a lot more propellant and had a longer barrel
HVAP gave it 200mm of penetration, but this was a rare and rarely issued round, an M4 might only get 5 rounds

the 17pdr on the other hand had yet more propellant than the 76mm, giving it about 160mm of penetration
but didnt have any effective HE shells, limiting it solely to hard targets

The Firefly is the definition of a stopgap measure. The 17 pdr gun was too big for the turret unless mounted sideways, which moved the turret basket from inhabitable to merely uncomfortably cramped. Also there was no space for a coaxial gun. Next you had to modify the rear of the turret because the gun recoils back so far, and the additional space was necessary to accommodate the longer 76.2mm shells and the radio equipment. The radio equipment has to be in the turret because the bow gunner/radio operator's position has been replaced by another ammunition rack, because the new shells are too large to be stored in the turret in sufficient amount. This also presents the issue of accessing those shells because they're on the right side of the gun and the loader's on the left side of the gun. And of course there's the obvious issue of having the majority of your ammunition in the front of the tank.

Attached: IMG_6543.jpg (800x600, 130K)

The 76mm has a longer barrel, which generally means more velocity and more accuracy, and fires different shells.

Higher velocity is generally not desirable for firing early WW2 era high explosive rounds due to it fucking with the sensitive fuzes, which is why a lot of WW2 tank guns are relatively short unless they are specialized AT variants, plus the fact that armor at the start of the war was really not that thick. The KV, T-34, Churchill (well, in places...), Lee, Sherman and Tiger were the first somewhat heavily armoured tanks of the war due to slopes or sheer armor thickness. Both Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs were upgraded to have thicker armor, but they never really equaled a Sherman.

The Panzer IV likewise started out with the infantry support 75mm L/24 (length of 24 calibres), got upgraded with the 75mm L/48 (roughly equivalent to American 76mm with normal AP), also found on later model StuGs, and the really long 75mm L/70 armed the Panther. The really huge 88mm L/71 was on the Jagdpanther and King Tiger and was probably the "best" general-purpose tank gun of the war because of ammo problems with the American 90mm, but it was quite heavy and only on highly specialized vehicles.

>Also there was no space for a coaxial gun

The Firefly does have a coaxial machine gun. You're thinking of the bow machine gun position.

>The radio equipment has to be in the turret because the bow gunner/radio operator's position has been replaced by another ammunition rack

In British tanks the radio is in the turret because the tank commander / loader operates the radio. Cromwell, Comet, Churchill all have the radio in the rear of the turret.

In all other Shermans the radio is in the turret anyway as the bow machine gun position is crewed by the assistant driver who does not operate the radio.

>another ammunition rack, because the new shells are too large to be stored in the turret in sufficient amount. This also presents the issue of accessing those shells because they're on the right side of the gun and the loader's on the left side of the gun.

Not that much of an issue if you consider that it has 6 rounds in a ready rack (Sherman 76 has 8 rounds in a ready rack) and then both tanks can access the ammunition in the floor of the tank.

If you're going through 20-30 rounds in a single engagement without replenishing the ready rack then you're having a really bad day.

>And of course there's the obvious issue of having the majority of your ammunition in the front of the tank.

15 rounds is not the majority of your ammunition. Its less ammo that in the smallest turret stowage bin.

Attached: no radio.jpg (589x469, 64K)

>tfw nobody loves the KwK 40 L/43

M4A3 and its not even a competition
>better engine
>better running gear
>better mobility
>HE shells worth a damn
>Less cramped
I'd take those over a marginally better cannon thats the 17pdr

>M4A3
>Not M4A3(76)W HVSS

Attached: 1536202634012.jpg (1200x898, 141K)

>inb4wherboos
Stop being asshurt that based Panzers will always be peak a e s t h e t i c.
>but muh practicality
Who the fuck cares, the war has been over for 73 years, looks are all that matter now

Not all E8's had 76ers.
Also the Firefly is a pile of shit that only exists because it was cheaper to make then the alternatives.

>A box with a frying pan
>Peak AESTHETHIC

Attached: 1536920544657.png (425x450, 112K)

M4A3E8 came almost exclusively in 76mm

Who cares, the M51 made both of them obsolete.

Attached: Shermans.jpg (600x402, 34K)

The multi bank was huge and heavy. Early models had problems with carb fuel distribution. That was fixed by a redesign of the intakes. Other than that while the US preferred the GAA i was under the impression the British and Russians like the engine.

Attached: chrysler-a57-multibank-installation (1).jpg (1024x850, 172K)

Super Sherman was obsolete when it was made

Dated maybe, but no less obsolete than the T-55. Both are still currently in service.

2226 M4A3(76)W 76 HVSS
3380 M4A3(105) HVSS
113 M4A3(75)W HVSS

Total: 5719

2316 M4A3(76)W VVSS
1300 M4A3(105) VVSS
2420 M4A3(75)W VVSS
1690 M4A3(75) VVSS
254 M4A3E2 VVSS

Total: 7980

Incorrect. The most numerous M4A3E8 was armed with the 105mm. The most numerous M4A3(76)W had VVSS.

From my understanding the French and Chinese also didn't have a problem. Also i didn't realize that the Russians used M4A4s, I thought that they only had M4A2s.

Thanks, although I was wondering why 76mm was considered too big for early Sherman turret, despite the miniscule difference in caliber
Thank You too, mangina.

The 76mm armed version, no question.

...both are 76mm armed versions...

>12 calibres difference
>minuscule

Excuse me?

Attached: 1533907671506.png (428x315, 87K)

My bad on the Russian part I thought the M4A4 was lend-leased to Russia too.

It's the girth that matters inside the turret, and not the length?

gun needed to have a longer breech to handle the higher velocity round, since it would produce a lot more recoil

Easy mistake to make, I was just curious as to whether Russia did use any M4A4s as they seemed to get everywhere.

China used a bunch of them, France had a mixture of M4A4s and M4A2s with M4A1s and M4A3s as replacements. I wouldn't be surprised if some ended up in Russia.

One is called 76mm, the other is referred to by its shell weight. Don't be obtuse.

Enjoy your unbalanced gun then. Or we're you going to use the same sized counterweight and breach?

17 pounder was almost never called a 76mm in practice,
so if someone says 76mm you know they are talking about the M1

Out of curiosity how much better do you think the Firefly would have been if it had been rearmed with the smaller 77HV instead?

Still shit compared to the Comet and Challenger, the HV is still larger than a 76 and it's still using the smaller turret.

Huh, i knew the 105s were the most in demand but i didn't think they were actually delivered. I guess they just don't get the hype they deserve.

by the end of the war, there was basically no german armor left, but german infantry were often fanatical defenders
so i guess it makes sense that they would ask for more howitzers

105s were also attached to artillery rather than armor divisions, so they would be a lot more spread out

Firefly was trash

The HVAP round for the 76mm had far higher penetration than the AP round for the 17 pounder, the APDS round that had higher penetration of either for the 17 pounder was useless because of how inaccurate it was.

Why is it shit compared to the A30 or A34?

Because it has a hard time doing it's job. The crew ergonomics are so shit and so is the gun handling that towed at has an easier time dispatching tanks.
The only reason the Firefly had no issues was because of a lack of german trained crews and tanks as well as the fuel to run them.
Compare the interior and gun handling of the Challenger and Comet and you will realize that all the praise the Firefly gets is unwarranted.

>The round that was essentially never issued to units had far better penetration than the bog standard ammunition

Also the accuracy problems with APDS only applies to the British produced ammunition, which was later fixed. The Canadian APDS was fine.

But with the smaller 77mm HV in the turret would the crew ergonomics be drastically better? Smaller gun, smaller breach, smaller ammunition. Do you think that would make a sufficient difference or is the firefly unsalvagable?

Also whats your opinion on the Achiles used in the offensive role such as when attached Tank Brigades? Good Firefly substitute?

If the Firefly is so garbage please explain to me why they ceased production of the A30 Challenger to produce it?

The calibres referred to are the length of the barrel. A 25 calibre barrel has a barrel length 25 times the bore diameter. This meaning for calibre is usually reserved for artillery, including ship artillery (see US 16"/45 cal and 16"/50 cal for example).

A longer, heavier, higher pressure gun firing longer shells needs a heavier, bigger, longer breech and breech block.

Because of cost and time. It was cheaper and quicker to build Fireflies.
You are talking about the nation that built the STEN, till the war ended while buying Thompsons with gold. The British procurement system should not be assumed to take the best decisions.

>But with the smaller 77mm HV in the turret would the crew ergonomics be drastically better? Smaller gun, smaller breach, smaller ammunition.
We are still talking about a turret which the US deemed to small for a 76 fitting a gun larger than a 76. Though it's undeniable it would be a massive improvement, it's still not tip top shape but will function now without the gunner needing to do a mime trick.

>Also whats your opinion on the Achiles used in the offensive role such as when attached Tank Brigades? Good Firefly substitute?
The Achiles was rarely used by the Tank Brigades as it was a Royal Artillery weapon, same with the Archer. And while the Achiles has better crew comfort and usability it is open top(therefor vulnerable to most weapons on the battlefield), weaker armored (therefore vulnerable to Pak 38's) and lacks a powered traverse, making reaction fire a lot harder, which is what the Firefly was intended to do most of the time.

The Challenger was cancelled because of the Comet 77HV made it obsolete in terms of British produced tanks.

Fairly certain they stopped buying tommie guns because they were stupidly expensive.

>The Achiles was rarely used by the Tank Brigades as it was a Royal Artillery weapon, same with the Archer.

Just to make sure that we're on the same page i'm just going to clarify that Tank Brigades are the ones with Churchill Tanks.

Achilles attached (almost constantly) to them were used offensively to give them a bigger bite. This differing from how they are regularly used which is essentially a mobile anti tank gun that was quickly replaced by towed pieces when the ground had been taken.

>both German's 75mm KwK42 and British's 17 pounder have better standard AP round than American's 76mmm M1

Attached: 1516106702512.jpg (596x545, 244K)

>dedicated anti-tank guns penetrate better than a general purpose gun
76mm wasnt the best gun in tank v tank actions, but it had a relatively high rate of fire to compensate

the german long 75s had to re-adjust trajectory when firing HE rounds, while the 17 pounder didnt have an HE at all
so the 76mm has the benefit of a relatively simple HE shell to use

>17 pounder didnt have an HE at all

????

Attached: large_000000.jpg (800x800, 23K)

17-pounder HE shells did exist, but they were pretty weak for most of the war and rarely issued

>a general purpose gun
That's the 75mm gun.

Attached: M18_hellcat_side.jpg (2247x1038, 1.62M)

>HVAP 76mm ammo
>never used
>implies Canadians widely used their own APDS in the same post

Attached: 5f3460053b2aae8dbfed72cf216b3f40.jpg (236x219, 11K)

Good job there's 2-3 75mm armed Shermans right next to it then.

>implies Canadians widely used their own APDS in the same post

[Citation needed]

>Used as an AA gun, anti tank gun, dual purpose gun
>not general purpose

>Talks about how good barely issued ammunition is in comparison to the regular round for the 17pdr
>then proceeds to complain about ammunition that on average made up 6% of the total ammo load

Do you think before you post? Literally both points are so pointless.

Why did the US never develop Sabot rounds for the 76mm M1?

The remarks in the conclusion of the test between the 76mm and 17 pounder the US did states that it would be wise to develop a round which copied the Sabot projectile with the 76mm case. It implies that accuracy issues with the 17 pounder lie with the gun itself, not the projectile or propellant.

Same diameter but different gun.

"An order for 20,000 HVAP rounds was issued in the late summer, but production never kept up to demand because of shortages of tungsten. This production was to be equally divided between 76mm and 3 inches, the latter for the M10 3-inch GMC tank destroyer. The HVAP ammunition underwent continual refinement throughout the autumn and was finally type-classified as the M93 76mm fixed shot HVAP-T in February 1945. The first distribution of HVAP ammunition to tank units took place in Belgium on September 11, 1944 to the 3rd Armored Division and the 746th Tank Battalion."
Zaloga - M4(76mm) Sherman Medium Tank 1943-65

go play more War Thunder faggot

Ah, thanks for the correction. Had a 50/50 chance for the correct part but I guessed wrong.

The 3-inch Gun M1918 is essentially the same gun as the 3-inch Gun M7. 76mm M1 is a development of that and fires the same ammunition.

Essentially the same gun.

>This production was to be equally divided between 76mm and 3 inches, the latter for the M10 3-inch GMC tank destroyer.

So it was given to the GMC M10 and GMC M18 and never issued to the 76mm M4s.

I've seen the ammo levels for these units its essentially one round per tank per month. It might as well be tank fairy dust.

585 M4A3 75W (HVSS) were built before the end of the war in September 1945

Attached: m4a375w_33.jpg (839x527, 242K)

>The M26 brass cartridge case was used for all loaded rounds, with a weight of 5.28 lb (2.39 kg) and length of 21.3 in (54 cm)

>It was an entirely different case from the 3-inch MKIIM2 case used for the 3-inch M3 anti-aircraft gun and 3-inch M5, M6, and M7 guns used on the a towed anti-tank gun, M6 heavy tank, and M10 Gun Motor Carriage.

I make it 651 M4A3(75)W I miscounted before.

E8 is better in every way except raw penetration.
And way the fuck comfier inside.

Let me explain this to you

>equally divided between 76mm and 3 inches

3 inches = M10

76mm = M18

Tanks got 1-3 rounds, TDs got 5-10.

76mm M1 fires the same projectiles, but the case is different

>the suspension is better in every way except raw penetration

>77HV is a completely different gun from the 17pdr

M4A3E8 had a better engine, better suspension, didnt give up its vertical stabilizer, had a more general purpose gun, better tracks, wet ammo racks, and much better ergonimics

it was all arounf

E8 is the suspension friend.

it had a lot of benefits that the standard A3 didnt have
all E8s except the 105mm were wet storage equipped as standard, while only 76mm A3s had wet storage

>what is reading comprehension

E8 refers to the suspension specifically user.

>It was issued to tank units for infrequently that it might as well not have been
>but it was better than the standard ammo for the 17pdr so YEAH FUCK YOU

Whats the point in discussing anything with you.

>all E8s except the 105mm were wet storage equipped as standard, while only 76mm A3s had wet storage

What?

Attached: 1536808588842.jpg (333x342, 17K)

If 100 Shermans had to fight 100 T-38s on a battlefield of rolling hills and bocage, who would win?

Sherman hands down.

T-38s are garbage

Attached: T-38.jpg (3072x2304, 2.7M)

>pitting russian tanks with only -7 degrees gun depression against american -12 degree guns in rolling terrain
its like you want to embarrass stalin

The Firefly was only impressive in the absolute performance of the gun and projectile in a strictly anti-tank role.

As much as hate Shermancucks in general, the 76 mm variant was much better overall, with the superior crew egonomics, even though the 76 mm was a poor tank-buster and not the best HE round.

But late war, there were simply NO German tanks anyway.

Attached: 1504567910029.jpg (1249x682, 89K)