±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 542
Total: 542
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Photo Gallery
02: Community Forums
03: Statistics
04: Community Forums
05: Community Forums
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Downloads
09: Community Forums
10: Photo Gallery
11: Community Forums
12: Community Forums
13: Community Forums
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: Community Forums
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Community Forums
21: Photo Gallery
22: Downloads
23: Home
24: Downloads
25: News Archive
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Photo Gallery
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Home
35: Community Forums
36: Photo Gallery
37: Community Forums
38: Photo Gallery
39: Your Account
40: CPGlang
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Photo Gallery
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Photo Gallery
47: Community Forums
48: Photo Gallery
49: Community Forums
50: Community Forums
51: Photo Gallery
52: Member Screenshots
53: Downloads
54: Community Forums
55: Home
56: Community Forums
57: Community Forums
58: Home
59: Community Forums
60: Photo Gallery
61: Community Forums
62: Community Forums
63: Community Forums
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Member Screenshots
69: Community Forums
70: Photo Gallery
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Home
74: Home
75: Community Forums
76: Photo Gallery
77: Photo Gallery
78: Home
79: Community Forums
80: Photo Gallery
81: Community Forums
82: Downloads
83: Community Forums
84: Photo Gallery
85: Home
86: Photo Gallery
87: Community Forums
88: Home
89: Photo Gallery
90: Photo Gallery
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Community Forums
94: Community Forums
95: Photo Gallery
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Your Account
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: Community Forums
105: Community Forums
106: Community Forums
107: Your Account
108: Photo Gallery
109: Downloads
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Photo Gallery
113: Community Forums
114: Downloads
115: Community Forums
116: Home
117: Photo Gallery
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Community Forums
123: Photo Gallery
124: Photo Gallery
125: Community Forums
126: Photo Gallery
127: Community Forums
128: Community Forums
129: Community Forums
130: Community Forums
131: Statistics
132: Photo Gallery
133: Community Forums
134: Community Forums
135: Community Forums
136: Home
137: Your Account
138: Photo Gallery
139: Photo Gallery
140: Home
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Photo Gallery
145: Your Account
146: Community Forums
147: Photo Gallery
148: Photo Gallery
149: Community Forums
150: Community Forums
151: Community Forums
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: Community Forums
156: Community Forums
157: Photo Gallery
158: Your Account
159: Community Forums
160: Community Forums
161: Photo Gallery
162: Member Screenshots
163: Photo Gallery
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Home
168: Community Forums
169: Community Forums
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Community Forums
174: Community Forums
175: Home
176: Downloads
177: Photo Gallery
178: Search
179: Community Forums
180: Photo Gallery
181: Member Screenshots
182: CPGlang
183: Community Forums
184: Photo Gallery
185: Community Forums
186: Community Forums
187: Photo Gallery
188: Community Forums
189: Home
190: Community Forums
191: Member Screenshots
192: Community Forums
193: Photo Gallery
194: Home
195: Community Forums
196: Home
197: Community Forums
198: Downloads
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Community Forums
202: Photo Gallery
203: Community Forums
204: Downloads
205: Your Account
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Community Forums
209: Home
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Downloads
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Downloads
217: Community Forums
218: Community Forums
219: Home
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Community Forums
223: CPGlang
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Community Forums
227: Downloads
228: Photo Gallery
229: Photo Gallery
230: Community Forums
231: Photo Gallery
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Community Forums
235: Photo Gallery
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Home
239: Community Forums
240: Community Forums
241: Community Forums
242: Community Forums
243: Community Forums
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Community Forums
248: Photo Gallery
249: Home
250: Home
251: Downloads
252: Photo Gallery
253: Community Forums
254: Photo Gallery
255: Community Forums
256: Downloads
257: Community Forums
258: Your Account
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: Community Forums
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: Community Forums
268: Photo Gallery
269: Community Forums
270: Community Forums
271: Member Screenshots
272: Downloads
273: Community Forums
274: Community Forums
275: Community Forums
276: Photo Gallery
277: Downloads
278: Community Forums
279: Home
280: Downloads
281: Photo Gallery
282: Photo Gallery
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Your Account
286: Community Forums
287: Home
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Photo Gallery
293: Community Forums
294: Home
295: Photo Gallery
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Photo Gallery
301: Community Forums
302: Photo Gallery
303: Photo Gallery
304: Community Forums
305: Downloads
306: Home
307: Community Forums
308: Photo Gallery
309: Community Forums
310: Community Forums
311: Home
312: Community Forums
313: Community Forums
314: Member Screenshots
315: Community Forums
316: Community Forums
317: Home
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Home
321: Community Forums
322: Member Screenshots
323: Home
324: Community Forums
325: Home
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Community Forums
329: Photo Gallery
330: Home
331: Photo Gallery
332: Photo Gallery
333: Community Forums
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: CPGlang
338: Statistics
339: News Archive
340: Community Forums
341: Community Forums
342: Community Forums
343: Community Forums
344: Member Screenshots
345: Community Forums
346: Community Forums
347: Photo Gallery
348: Community Forums
349: Photo Gallery
350: Photo Gallery
351: Photo Gallery
352: Community Forums
353: Community Forums
354: Statistics
355: Home
356: Community Forums
357: Community Forums
358: Photo Gallery
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Your Account
362: Community Forums
363: Photo Gallery
364: CPGlang
365: Community Forums
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Home
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Downloads
374: Community Forums
375: Home
376: Community Forums
377: Community Forums
378: Community Forums
379: Community Forums
380: Community Forums
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Photo Gallery
384: CPGlang
385: Photo Gallery
386: Community Forums
387: Your Account
388: Community Forums
389: Community Forums
390: Photo Gallery
391: Downloads
392: Community Forums
393: Community Forums
394: Tell a Friend
395: Community Forums
396: Photo Gallery
397: Community Forums
398: Community Forums
399: Member Screenshots
400: Community Forums
401: Community Forums
402: Community Forums
403: Community Forums
404: Photo Gallery
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Photo Gallery
408: Community Forums
409: Community Forums
410: Photo Gallery
411: Photo Gallery
412: Community Forums
413: Community Forums
414: Community Forums
415: Photo Gallery
416: Downloads
417: Community Forums
418: Member Screenshots
419: Community Forums
420: Home
421: Community Forums
422: Community Forums
423: Photo Gallery
424: Home
425: Photo Gallery
426: Community Forums
427: Photo Gallery
428: Community Forums
429: Community Forums
430: Community Forums
431: Community Forums
432: Community Forums
433: Downloads
434: Photo Gallery
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: Home
439: Community Forums
440: Home
441: Downloads
442: Community Forums
443: Community Forums
444: Community Forums
445: Community Forums
446: Photo Gallery
447: Community Forums
448: Community Forums
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: Statistics
452: Community Forums
453: Community Forums
454: Your Account
455: Community Forums
456: Photo Gallery
457: Photo Gallery
458: Community Forums
459: Photo Gallery
460: Community Forums
461: Community Forums
462: Community Forums
463: Community Forums
464: Community Forums
465: Community Forums
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: Community Forums
469: Community Forums
470: Photo Gallery
471: Community Forums
472: Community Forums
473: Home
474: Home
475: News Archive
476: Your Account
477: Community Forums
478: Community Forums
479: Community Forums
480: Community Forums
481: Community Forums
482: Community Forums
483: Photo Gallery
484: Your Account
485: Photo Gallery
486: Statistics
487: Community Forums
488: Community Forums
489: Community Forums
490: Community Forums
491: Community Forums
492: Community Forums
493: Home
494: Community Forums
495: Your Account
496: Photo Gallery
497: Photo Gallery
498: Downloads
499: Community Forums
500: Home
501: Community Forums
502: Community Forums
503: Community Forums
504: Photo Gallery
505: Photo Gallery
506: Photo Gallery
507: Community Forums
508: CPGlang
509: Home
510: Community Forums
511: Community Forums
512: Community Forums
513: Home
514: Home
515: Community Forums
516: Community Forums
517: Community Forums
518: Community Forums
519: Statistics
520: Downloads
521: Statistics
522: CPGlang
523: Photo Gallery
524: Photo Gallery
525: Photo Gallery
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Your Account
529: Photo Gallery
530: Community Forums
531: Downloads
532: Community Forums
533: Community Forums
534: Photo Gallery
535: Photo Gallery
536: Community Forums
537: Community Forums
538: Photo Gallery
539: Downloads
540: Community Forums
541: Community Forums
542: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Sherman Firefly
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 9:58 pm
Post subject: Sherman Firefly

Hi folks

I'm reading an book (yes I'm already old enough to know what that is) called "Sherman at war"

And in the book they dicuss the history of the Sherman and it's variants, including the British 17pdr (Firefly) version

At the end of the Firefly description it tells that there are records showing that the US army had, at 1 point during WW2, about 100 Sherman's armed with British 17pdr available

Also that it is not clear what has happened to these tanks after the war

Does some of you know more about this story?

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
the_shadock
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2865
Location: Normandy, France
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 10:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Rolling Eyes Michel, how old are you?

I've never heard of such a thing called "a book"...

P-O

26 y-o

_________________
soldat_ryan @ hotmail.com

Looking for photos of Sherman manufacturer's plates
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

35 years and 3 month's young Cool

An book is an bunch of printed e-mails however both sides of the paper is used Laughing

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
JeffStringer
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 637

PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 11:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

This is the only information I know about them
freespace.virgin.net/s...usnew.html
and it's little.
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 12:20 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I wonder if any of these were among the stock of "Fireflys" acquired by Argentina and upgraded as "repotendiados" or if all of those vehicles came from exclusively European stocks (which had been my understanding)?
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
binder001
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 363

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

These tanks probably went immediately from the depot to surplus. The unit(s) that were undergoing conversion training to the 17-pounder were probably told to immediately turn in their vehicles. The 17 poounder project was stopped just as the ETOUSA was near to having operational Fireflys, but since the gun with its associated parts and ammo were non-standard they were dropped like a hot rock. I imagine that the US Army "Fireflys" were either scrapped or merged into the stocks of tanks that were provided to European armies. The primary features seem to be the US vision cupola for the commander and a variation in the radio box design. There have been questions about any use of HVSS or wet stowage hulls. Otherwise a "US" M4 with 17 pounder would be functionally like the British ones. THe M4A3s would have been unique, but except for a possible one found on a firing range, there haven't been any sightings of an M4A3 "Firefly".
Back to top
View user's profile
warddw
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Mark Hayward's book on the sherman firefly has some documented US usage in Italy - recommended - a good read exclusively devoted to the firefly...

Back to top
View user's profile
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi folks,

thanks all, for the info

Concerning the dropping of the 17pdr because of being non-standard in the US army... Rolling Eyes

Indeed it woud make more sense developing an complete new 76mm gun with new ammo for the 76mm Sherman Twisted Evil
Instead of using an proven gun design

For what I could find about the history of the Firefly there was another main reason the US army did not want to use the 17pdr gun

Concerning teh book about the Firefly, I have that
It's an the pile of books, still to read

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
Hi folks,

thanks all, for the info

Concerning the dropping of the 17pdr because of being non-standard in the US army... Rolling Eyes

. . .

For what I could find about the history of the Firefly there was another main reason the US army did not want to use the 17pdr gun

. . .

Michel


Michel - I'm curious, what was the other reason the U.S. did not want to use the 17pdr? Or am I reading something into your comment that isn't there

The reasons I have heard over the years (And I'm not saying which I believe, I'm just listing theone I remember being suggested)

1) Supply constraints - All possible production was being used by the British units. A variation of this is that even if there were enough guns 17pdr ammo was a constant shortage item

2) Command did not see the need for a more powerful gun

3) The very poor performance of 17pdr HE ammo

4) NIH [ Not Invented Here ]

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Bob,

the ones you listed are the ones I know also, only in an different line-up

1) NIH [ Not Invented Here ] (especially true with-in some locations of US army command)

2) Command did not see the need for a more powerful gun
The "more" powerful 76mm was developed for the Sherman, so there was need for an more powerful gun according some one's idea.
Also certain part of command thought there there was no need because there was an special branche in the US army called the tank destroyers.


3) Supply constraints - All possible production was being used by the British units. A variation of this is that even if there were enough guns 17pdr ammo was a constant shortage item

The US industry made ammunition and all kinds of other stuff for the British army
The US air force had the (British) Rolce-Royce Merlin engine made in license to put them in the P-51 Mustang
The navy copied the (British) all steel flight deck on the aircraft carriers to replace the wooden fligth decks
The US army could not copy the 17pdr design...........
Confused

4) The very poor performance of 17pdr HE ammo
The 76mm gun was developed to deal with the German Pz 5 and Pz 6 armour
Also the 76mm HE ammo wasn't know in the service for it's good performance either
In the field the 75mm was prefered for HE because of it's better performance


Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:24 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I think between the tanks not being fielded in time for ETO and the need for commonality after the War these tanks were destined for surplus.

Commonality for the 75mm and 76mm would not be a problem since US wartime production of this ammo would last a long time after hostilities ceased. We have (more like had) an amazing capability to produce large amounts of munitions during the war. Once peacetime kicked in everything ceased and munitions were stockpiled. I was still firing WWII manufactured API and API-T in Iraq for my .50 cal back in 2007. With the 17pdr a new production line would be needed and since the war ended why continue making ammo when you don't really need it. I imagine this would have been a major factor in it's demise

The M26 was coming on line and the Army had pretty much decided the 90mm was the gun of choice for tanks. So much so that when they made the higher velocity 90mm for the M47 they made sure it could still fire the older rounds but tapered the newer rounds near the forcing cone to prevent their accidental use in the older tanks.

Fielding a new gun in peacetime is not that hard, having ample munitions for it is another story. When the M60 came on line there was a serious shortage of 105mm ammo for her. This led to the M48A3 not receiving the 105mm gun. Priority for 105mm was in Europe to counter the T55 and T62's. They figured the 90mm was plenty for other areas, and were proven correct in Vietnam.

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 2:51 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Michel
I wasn't putting them in any particular order but going with your order

1) There is no way NIH can be discussed or defended it is a 'religious issue'.

2) Tank Destroyers are a doctrine issue separate from the weapon issue itself. It does play into the discussion but I'm going to avoid it just because I don't even want to try to justify the decision based on it. Yes it had an affect. Given the overall offensive role of the U.S. Army in NW Europe it could be considered a flawed doctrine. But if the U.S. had been tasked with a primary defensive role (As the Germans were at the time) it may not have been seen that way. I believe the doctrine that had tank battalions outside the Infantry division structure and only attached them 'as needed' (Which ended up being almost all the time) was at least as much of a doctrinal flaw that can be laid back at the feet of Gen McNair as the TD doctrine can.

3) Yes the U.S,. did supply a lot of ammunition to the British. But except for small arms ammo I believe the great majority was for American spec weapons. The lead time was fairly extensive. The best example of ammo interchangability is the 6pdr/57mm which was used in both armies in large numbers. I believe it took over a year for the 6pdr gun to be put in production in the U.S. as the 57 mm. A lot of that time was spent changing detail drawings to American Standards that could be released to US manufacturers for production use.

The Merlin engine had the same issue in being set up for U.S. production. There were enough differences in the Rolls Royce and Packard engines that Lancaster bombers were given different Mark numbers based on the engines installed and engines from the different manufacturing pools could not be interchanged.

The difference I see with the 17pdr is the time frame that some 17pdr proponents think the adoption could have been made in. Given the time it would have taken to adopt the 17pdr as a standard there were two other solutions coming along. Th e76mm in the short and mid term and the 90mm gun tank in the long term. I think if the effort had been put into rushing an increase in 90mm gun production and adapting the T23 turret to handle it, or pushing the T26 turret forward faster and installing it on the Sherman there would have been no discussion of a 17pdr Sherman for the U.S. Army.

The steel flight deck was adopted for other reasons (Jet exhausts) If you mean the armored flight deck we will have to move that to a different forum. I believe that argument makes the Sherman discussion look simple and straight forward. Rolling Eyes

4) I used to have a comparison of the various HE rounds (It was from a message on the old AFV news) Yes the 75mm was the best the 76mm was less effective and the 17pdr was at least twice that far below the 76mm. Only when the tank gun is stepped up to the 90mm did a tank gun equal or exceed the 75mm
In my amateur opinion I see the difference as being directly related to the muzzle velocity of the gun. As the MV increased it was necessary to increase the thickness of the shell wall to handle the increased stresses. This cuts the size of the HE filler down. Some people will say 'so what the higher MV makes it a better AT round. The problem comes when the uses the tanks were put to is examined. While tanks had to be prepared to fight other tanks they spent most of their time fighting non-tank targets where HE was the preferred round. Even the British didn't use the 17pdr in all tanks in a unit.

I have also heard that there was another problem with the 17pdr in the Sherman. I remember reading that the 17pdr had some elevation restrictions in teh Sherman and could not be fired at 'certain elevations' because the gun could not recoil the full way at those elevations (I seem to remember that it was at elevations where the turret ring interfered with the full recoil)

I was curious if you had some other factors that I hadn't heard of over the years

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi Bob,

I thought you had them in an particular order, so.. Mr. Green

1) concerning the NIH I have to agree on that, there are an lot of people who already tried to discuss or defend that

2) I mentioned the TD branch because that was an reason to block an capable AT gun in the Sherman. If they had put the 17pdr or 90mm in an Sherman it would have made the TD branch an sort of ... obsolete

3) Concenring the ammo, if I remember correcty the US also produced bigger ammo then only small arms ammo
For sure the US produced the fuzes used for British artillery shells, according British spec's
They also produced ammo for non-US spec small arms, for an example the US .303 rifle ammo was made for the Bren MG. However because it was not according British spec, the cartridges got bended and they got stuck in the MG. After this the US .303 cartridge was only allowed to be used for the British Lee-Enfield rifles

I only mentioned the Merlin engine and the metal Wink flight deck to illustrate the fact that they where willing to incorporated already existing better solutions, instead of inventing something new

4) Concerning the performance of the HE rounds. The 76mm was primarily developed for dealing with the armour of the German Pz 5 and Pz 6 tanks. The performance of the HE round was not the main reason to develope an new 76mm gun.
The 76mm was based on an 76mm AA gun with an high MV. They redesigned the cartridge to make it suitable for handling it inside an tank turret, however keeping the same performance as the AA round. After the first protoype's they decided to shorten the barrel, because it was sticking to far out Shocked
However with the shortening of the barrel the AT performance of the gun dropped, because the MV dropped

Concerning the 17pdr breech sticking out to far, that was only true on the first versions. Latter versions had an redesigned shorter breech.
The British had one 17pdr armed Sherman on every four tanks, so they had the HE performance and the AT performance combined

About the MV of an shell to knock-out an enemy tank
There are 2 type's of shell suited to take an tank out;
1) it has an high MV, giving it high impact energy
2) the shell is big enough, no matter what type of shell it is. The Russian 152mm HE shell of the ISU-152 was big enough to take out an German Pz 5 or Pz 6, only because of it's size

Nothing new to ad Wink

Nice such an discussion, should we do more often


Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Some interesting side points

Yes we produced fuses to British specs. In fact my mother in law worked in a factory in Elkton MD that produced fuses. They hated it when they did fuses destined for British stocks. They had quotas and when doing British spec fuses it took much longer to produce the same number of fuses.

I don't think it was a case of the TD branch blocking the good gun in the Sherman. I think it was a case of once the TD doctrine was established it was impossible at the highest levels to justify the better gun

Armor Branch Officer - We need a better gun to kill German tanks
Staff Officer - You aren't supposed to be killing tanks, that is the job of TDs
A O - but sometimes we run across German tanks
S O - Then call for TD support
A O - (shaking head) The Germans won't wait for the TDs to show up, They kill our tanks and move on

I just had an interesting thought
Actually deployment of the Firefly was actually just taking the TD doctrine down to the platoon/troop level. If the U.S. had made a tank platoon two M36 TDs and three 75mm Shermans you would have the same thing as the British had without having to add a new weapon to the system.

and yes big shells have a capability all their own. Beldon Cooper mentions using M12 self propelled 155mm guns as AT weapons. In that case you had large caliber and high MV Shocked

And yes I like discussions like this. We used to have them more often , maybe they will come back

_________________
Bob Smart ([email protected])
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Massimo_Foti
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Apr 08, 2008
Posts: 5397
Location: Lugano, Switzerland
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Actually deployment of the Firefly was actually just taking the TD doctrine down to the platoon/troop level. If the U.S. had made a tank platoon two M36 TDs and three 75mm Shermans you would have the same thing as the British had without having to add a new weapon to the system.

In post-war years, once a larger amount of tanks was available, the italian army tried to mix Shermans with 17pdr and 76mm with Shermans with 105mm at the smaller unit level possible. I guess they came to similar conclusions
Back to top
View user's profile
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 1 of 5
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum