±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: 547
Total: 547
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Community Forums
04: Home
05: Your Account
06: Community Forums
07: Home
08: Community Forums
09: Community Forums
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Photo Gallery
13: Photo Gallery
14: Community Forums
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: CPGlang
18: Statistics
19: Community Forums
20: Home
21: Home
22: Community Forums
23: Community Forums
24: Home
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Community Forums
29: Community Forums
30: Community Forums
31: Community Forums
32: Community Forums
33: Community Forums
34: Home
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Home
38: Community Forums
39: Community Forums
40: Community Forums
41: Home
42: Community Forums
43: Community Forums
44: Community Forums
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Home
50: Community Forums
51: Downloads
52: Home
53: Photo Gallery
54: Community Forums
55: Community Forums
56: Photo Gallery
57: Community Forums
58: Community Forums
59: Home
60: Community Forums
61: Community Forums
62: Your Account
63: Downloads
64: Community Forums
65: Home
66: Community Forums
67: Photo Gallery
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Community Forums
71: News Archive
72: Community Forums
73: Home
74: Your Account
75: Downloads
76: Community Forums
77: Community Forums
78: Photo Gallery
79: Community Forums
80: Community Forums
81: Downloads
82: Community Forums
83: Photo Gallery
84: Home
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Community Forums
89: Member Screenshots
90: Community Forums
91: Photo Gallery
92: Community Forums
93: Downloads
94: Community Forums
95: Community Forums
96: Home
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: Community Forums
100: Community Forums
101: Community Forums
102: Community Forums
103: Downloads
104: Your Account
105: Community Forums
106: Photo Gallery
107: CPGlang
108: Photo Gallery
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: Photo Gallery
113: Photo Gallery
114: Home
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Community Forums
118: Community Forums
119: Photo Gallery
120: Community Forums
121: Community Forums
122: Photo Gallery
123: Community Forums
124: Downloads
125: Your Account
126: CPGlang
127: Home
128: Photo Gallery
129: Community Forums
130: Photo Gallery
131: Photo Gallery
132: Community Forums
133: Community Forums
134: Photo Gallery
135: Community Forums
136: Downloads
137: Home
138: Home
139: Your Account
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Photo Gallery
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Photo Gallery
150: CPGlang
151: Community Forums
152: CPGlang
153: Community Forums
154: Community Forums
155: Home
156: Community Forums
157: Community Forums
158: Community Forums
159: Member Screenshots
160: Your Account
161: Community Forums
162: Community Forums
163: Community Forums
164: Downloads
165: Photo Gallery
166: Community Forums
167: Photo Gallery
168: Community Forums
169: Photo Gallery
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Community Forums
174: Community Forums
175: Photo Gallery
176: Downloads
177: Community Forums
178: Community Forums
179: Downloads
180: Community Forums
181: Community Forums
182: Photo Gallery
183: Photo Gallery
184: Downloads
185: Photo Gallery
186: Home
187: Home
188: Community Forums
189: Home
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: Community Forums
194: Community Forums
195: Home
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Home
199: Photo Gallery
200: Member Screenshots
201: Photo Gallery
202: News
203: Community Forums
204: Community Forums
205: Photo Gallery
206: Community Forums
207: Member Screenshots
208: Photo Gallery
209: Downloads
210: Community Forums
211: Community Forums
212: Community Forums
213: Community Forums
214: Community Forums
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Downloads
218: Home
219: Home
220: Community Forums
221: Community Forums
222: Photo Gallery
223: Home
224: Community Forums
225: Community Forums
226: Photo Gallery
227: Community Forums
228: Community Forums
229: News
230: Community Forums
231: Community Forums
232: Community Forums
233: Community Forums
234: Downloads
235: Community Forums
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Photo Gallery
239: Community Forums
240: CPGlang
241: Home
242: Photo Gallery
243: Home
244: Community Forums
245: Member Screenshots
246: Community Forums
247: CPGlang
248: Community Forums
249: Photo Gallery
250: Community Forums
251: Community Forums
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: Downloads
255: Community Forums
256: Home
257: Community Forums
258: Community Forums
259: Community Forums
260: Community Forums
261: Downloads
262: Community Forums
263: Community Forums
264: Home
265: Community Forums
266: Photo Gallery
267: Community Forums
268: Photo Gallery
269: Photo Gallery
270: Community Forums
271: Downloads
272: Home
273: News
274: Photo Gallery
275: Community Forums
276: Community Forums
277: Downloads
278: Home
279: Community Forums
280: Home
281: Community Forums
282: Community Forums
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Community Forums
286: Photo Gallery
287: Photo Gallery
288: Community Forums
289: Community Forums
290: Community Forums
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: Community Forums
295: Home
296: Community Forums
297: Community Forums
298: Community Forums
299: Community Forums
300: Downloads
301: Community Forums
302: Downloads
303: Community Forums
304: Community Forums
305: Community Forums
306: Photo Gallery
307: Community Forums
308: Home
309: Community Forums
310: Photo Gallery
311: Photo Gallery
312: Community Forums
313: Community Forums
314: Community Forums
315: Community Forums
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Downloads
320: Photo Gallery
321: Photo Gallery
322: Photo Gallery
323: Photo Gallery
324: Community Forums
325: Community Forums
326: Community Forums
327: Community Forums
328: Community Forums
329: Community Forums
330: Photo Gallery
331: Photo Gallery
332: Community Forums
333: Home
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Photo Gallery
337: Community Forums
338: Community Forums
339: Community Forums
340: Community Forums
341: Downloads
342: Community Forums
343: Community Forums
344: Home
345: Community Forums
346: Photo Gallery
347: Community Forums
348: Community Forums
349: Photo Gallery
350: Community Forums
351: Photo Gallery
352: Community Forums
353: Photo Gallery
354: Photo Gallery
355: Downloads
356: Photo Gallery
357: Downloads
358: Home
359: Community Forums
360: Community Forums
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Home
364: Photo Gallery
365: Downloads
366: Community Forums
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Community Forums
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Community Forums
374: Community Forums
375: Community Forums
376: Community Forums
377: Photo Gallery
378: Photo Gallery
379: Community Forums
380: Community Forums
381: Community Forums
382: Community Forums
383: Community Forums
384: Community Forums
385: Photo Gallery
386: Community Forums
387: Downloads
388: Community Forums
389: CPGlang
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Community Forums
393: Community Forums
394: Photo Gallery
395: Photo Gallery
396: Community Forums
397: Photo Gallery
398: Community Forums
399: Downloads
400: Community Forums
401: Photo Gallery
402: Community Forums
403: Community Forums
404: Community Forums
405: Community Forums
406: Community Forums
407: Community Forums
408: Community Forums
409: Community Forums
410: Community Forums
411: Photo Gallery
412: Community Forums
413: Community Forums
414: Community Forums
415: Photo Gallery
416: Community Forums
417: Community Forums
418: Community Forums
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: Community Forums
422: Community Forums
423: Community Forums
424: Community Forums
425: Community Forums
426: Home
427: Community Forums
428: Community Forums
429: Community Forums
430: Photo Gallery
431: Community Forums
432: Community Forums
433: Photo Gallery
434: Community Forums
435: Community Forums
436: Home
437: Community Forums
438: Community Forums
439: Photo Gallery
440: Community Forums
441: Community Forums
442: Community Forums
443: Photo Gallery
444: Community Forums
445: Community Forums
446: Photo Gallery
447: Community Forums
448: Community Forums
449: Photo Gallery
450: Community Forums
451: Downloads
452: Photo Gallery
453: Community Forums
454: Community Forums
455: Community Forums
456: CPGlang
457: Community Forums
458: Community Forums
459: News Archive
460: Community Forums
461: Downloads
462: Community Forums
463: Community Forums
464: Downloads
465: Photo Gallery
466: Community Forums
467: Community Forums
468: Community Forums
469: Photo Gallery
470: Community Forums
471: Community Forums
472: Community Forums
473: Home
474: CPGlang
475: Home
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Photo Gallery
479: Community Forums
480: Photo Gallery
481: Community Forums
482: Community Forums
483: Community Forums
484: Community Forums
485: Photo Gallery
486: Community Forums
487: Community Forums
488: Home
489: Downloads
490: Home
491: Community Forums
492: Community Forums
493: Community Forums
494: Community Forums
495: Home
496: Community Forums
497: Photo Gallery
498: Community Forums
499: Photo Gallery
500: Photo Gallery
501: Community Forums
502: Your Account
503: CPGlang
504: Community Forums
505: Photo Gallery
506: Photo Gallery
507: Community Forums
508: Home
509: Photo Gallery
510: News Archive
511: Community Forums
512: Community Forums
513: Member Screenshots
514: Community Forums
515: Home
516: Community Forums
517: Community Forums
518: Community Forums
519: Community Forums
520: Community Forums
521: Community Forums
522: Photo Gallery
523: Photo Gallery
524: Downloads
525: Your Account
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Community Forums
529: Community Forums
530: Home
531: Community Forums
532: Photo Gallery
533: Downloads
534: Home
535: Community Forums
536: Home
537: Community Forums
538: Photo Gallery
539: Community Forums
540: Photo Gallery
541: Community Forums
542: Downloads
543: Community Forums
544: Home
545: CPGlang
546: Photo Gallery
547: 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 Previous  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: Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Well there is an big difference in the upgrading of the various weapons used in the different countries between 1942 (Africa landings) and 1944 (D-day)

The Russians upgraded their weapons in the tanks or developed new ones to defeat the heavier German armour
The T34/85, ISU-152, ISU-122, IS-2, etc where all developed mainly in response to the German Tiger

The Germans mainly upgraded their weapons in the tanks or developed new ones to defeat the heavier Russian armour to expected to appear
They had already some nasty suprises in the past, with Russian armour

The British, they did not realy standarised
However they dropped the ones that became obselete, like the Valentine and the Crusader, and replaced it with others
The upgrading of the weapons was not an real succes, except for the 17pdr on the Sherman

The US army had the know-how and the capable weapons available to defeat German armour
The 3in or 76mm AA gun, on which the 76mm tank gun was based, was capable with the MV it had to defeat German armour
The breech was modified to fit inside an tank, that made sense
However the barrel was made shorter because it was sticking out to far Shocked
With reducing the barrel length, the profit of the high MV was lost

The upgrade of the suspension was only something on the side
It did not improve the performance of the gun

When you build in an WW2 76mm Sherman gun into an modern M1A1 Abrams you still can not defeat the armour of an German Tiger or Panther
The only benefit you will have is mobility and armour protection

Concerning priorities of the several services and theaters
The demands of the different services was in all nations, not an typical problem for the US

About the several theaters
True the US (and UK) also had the pacific to operate in and this was not so for Russia or Germany
However the Japanese tanks where not the problem to defeat, no matter if an 75mm or an 76mm was used

The 76mm was developed to defeat the German armour and it failed in doing so

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
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 22, 2010 7:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss

Concerning priorities of the several services and theaters
The demands of the different services was in all nations, not an typical problem for the US

Michel


Sorry to disillusion you, but this is just plain wrong.

I recommend you do some additional reading. Regarding this point above, you might want to start with "Marines Under Armor" by Kenneth W. Estes, COL. (ret.), in particular the relevant chapters concerning the campaign in the Pacific. There was enormous friction between the Army and the USMC regarding the allocation of the limited resource of equipment.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Doug,

sorry if you are disappointed, however it's true

When 2 (or more) different branches have to use, or want to use, the same equipment and have to co-operated with each other:
- they will disagree with each other about allmost everything

Mainly because they have different requirements for the equipment and there are different needs of the amount of equipment

That has been during WW2, has been before WW2 and still is today
And that is not an problem that is typical to the US, because of the marines and the army

Found the book on Google books, will read it
Perhaps I will learm something new Mr. Green

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: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:02 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Michel

As you stated only the U.S. and U.K had to deal with the requirements of a worldwide war. The need to defeat German armor was only part of the tasks that U.S. and U.K. tank designors had to worry about. The users in teh Pacific and Southern Asia saw no need to spend time developing heavier tanks with more powerful guns. If anything they wanted development time spent on ways to transfer tanks from ships to beaches, fight in jungles and cross wide, deep rivers.

On top of that the U.S. was commited to supplying vehicles to many of the allies, some of whom had requirements that differed from the U.S. Army. And it did matter if a 75mm or a 76mm was used. When working in the tight confines of Pacific jungle a long barreled 76mm was not acceptable. Having a short barreled gun that wouldn't get hung up on nearby trees demanded a short barrel weapon.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 4:42 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
Doug,

sorry if you are disappointed, however it's true

When 2 (or more) different branches have to use, or want to use, the same equipment and have to co-operated with each other:
- they will disagree with each other about allmost everything

Mainly because they have different requirements for the equipment and there are different needs of the amount of equipment

That has been during WW2, has been before WW2 and still is today
And that is not an problem that is typical to the US, because of the marines and the army

Found the book on Google books, will read it
Perhaps I will learm something new Mr. Green

Michel


Actually, it was precisely typical (and very much so) in it's application to different priorities to the USMC and the Army...from no less a source than Gen. George C. Marshall, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, who openly wondered (and I paraphrase) if any of the necessary warfighting equipment that was considered necessary to the Army prosecuting the war would even be available, after he had finished supplying the USMC (as they were clearly in the fight in the PTO first and had most immediate needs for that equipment). When the Army CoS wonders if the material he needs will be available to him, you have to accept that this is a problem typical of the U.S. Armed Forces from the outset of the war. Everybody was jockying for weapons systems, means of production, aircraft engines, etc. for the perceived needs of all the services...all the time while trying to meet the needs of our lend-lease partners while trying to keep them afloat. U.S. production means were substantial, but not limitless, and this problem was not solved before the end of the war.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
bialy-r
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 06, 2009
Posts: 1233
Location: POLAND
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:37 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Sherman Hybrid Ic – Monument for the fallen of the 3rd Airborne Artillery Regiment in the 1982 war, Cordoba (Argentina)

carrosdecomb.blogspot....alera.html
Back to top
View user's profile
the_shadock
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2865
Location: Normandy, France
PostPosted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- bialy-r
Sherman Hybrid Ic – Monument for the fallen of the 3rd Airborne Artillery Regiment in the 1982 war, Cordoba (Argentina)

carrosdecomb.blogspot....alera.html


very well spotted, Rafal !!

_________________
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
clausb
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 146

PostPosted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:20 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

The problem with poor HE ammunition for the 17-pdr and the 76mm could easily have been solved by developing an HE round with thinner walls, fired at a lower velocity. The Germans did this from day one with the 7,5cm KwK 40 L/43 (later L/48) and that round contained about the same amount of explosive as the Us 75mm HE round. Possibly, a slight modification of the existing 75mm HE might have sufficed.

The British actually developed first a low velocity version of the original 17 pdr HE round and later - possibly post war - developed two different High Capacity rounds with more HE filler than the orginal.

So developing a good 17 pdr or 76mm HE round can hardly have been a significant technical problem, so the reason those two guns did not have a good HE round in WWII must be found elsewhere.
Back to top
View user's profile
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:02 am
Post subject: Re: WIP wait to look at.

Hi Folks!

Sorry I am so late to join in.

Maybe these photos might help some.

Below is a 1942 issued M2 treadway floating bridge. This bridge was designed to carry the M2 medium tank during the mid 1930s. The M3 Lee and the early M4s pushed the limits of this system. Note how close the outside edges of the M4 is to the edges of the treadways.
Note how the water level is over the top of the pontoons and parts of the saddles are in the water. This was the equipment the Chief of Engineers was concerned about. This was the system his engineers had to work with. Priority for steel for larger saddles and rubber for larger pontoons was low on the totom pole for the engineers.



This is the heavy M2 treadway with larger saddles and pontoons that large quanties only started reaching the ETO in late 1944. The heavier and longer saddles and larger pontoons also required larger and heavier trucks to transport this equipment. All needing room on the available shipping. The treadways have been moved outward, but not by that much. Still a tight fit for the M4E8's.



Below is the problem the Chief of Engineers had with sending the T-26 to the ETO. That bridge has been modified so the tracks would not damage the equipment along the outer edges of the deck. Anyone who has ever driven a tracked vehicle will understand this is just asking for trouble.


Four comments about the 76 gun tanks.
1. On June 6, 1944, there was a large number of 76mm tanks in storage in England. Not one single tank battalion commader wanted to replace his 75 gun tanks with the 76 prior to D-Day. The excuss given later was there wasn't time to retrain on those tanks. After the US Army started running into a larger numbers of Panther tanks than Army level intell expected did those same commanders started asking for those 76 guns tanks setting back in England. By now the fighting is all out in France and those battalion commanders who could not find the time in England found the time to retrain in France after the landings.

2. The proof testing of the 76mm AT ammo was flawed. Ike was told as late as June that the 76 AT ammo would go through the front hull of a Panther tank. It was only after the troops started using it that it was learned it could not do the job per the claims of the ordinance corps.

3. The 76mm HE round. Major case of could have, should have. Facts are the tankers did NOT like the one that was available, therefore, they didn't like the 76. They were not thinking about killing German tanks with their tanks. See comment below on doctrine.

4. Between the breakout and the start of the Battle of the Bulge. General Abrams who is one of the best known US tank battalion commanders in the ETO. His tank, Thunderbolt 6 was a 75mm M4. As a battalion commander he could pick the type of M4 he wanted. His Commanding Officer had to order him to use a 76mm M4 (Thunderbolt 7 a VVSS). My point here is that there was a MAJOR lack of end users asking for better tank guns. See comment below on doctrine.

If you look at the T-26 program, only the final version of the program was equiped with a 90 mm. All the others still had the same 76 the Sheman had. Before the Air Forces gained air superiorty on the battelfield, priorty of 90mm gun barrels went to air defense for the M-1 and M-2 90mm AAA weapon systems.

A study of the deployment of the first 40 T-26s (untested and not approved for issue) to the ETO shows that was the best that could have been done after the problem had been learned the hard way in June of 1944.


A study of the M6 heavy tank will also show the lack of interest in heavier tanks prior to the battles of June 44 in France.

Doctrine, championed by Gen McNair, Commanding Gereral of Army Ground Forces (he answered only to Gen. Marshall), had a MAJOR impact on limiting the upgrading of tanks. As late as D-Day he was still in favor of TOWED anti-tanks guns to deal with German tanks. He reportly said "Give tankers bigger guns and they will go tank hunting". A volition of HIS Tank Destoryers ONLY fight enemy tanks. This doctrine which was drilled into all tankers and tank unit commanders during the war. It was only after the war and the results of lessons learned that the highest levels of the US Army accepted the fact this doctrine was wrong. That acceptance resulted it the disbandment of the Tank Destroyer Command and all that equipment declared obsolete and surplus. This doctrine WAS the NUMBER ONE problem that delayed more fire power and better protection from reaching the field. All the other excuses could have been over come if the WILL was there. The WILL was just NOT THERE in the right places.

There are MANY details that caused the Sherman to be the tank the US fielded. In the end, in the hands of fast learning US and UK tankers, the Sherman was the best tank on the western side of the ETO. I understand that Soviet tankers who had M4A2/76s learned to use they very well also. The history of the Sherman is a major example of a path once chosen, is very hard to change once travel on it has started.

All of this from one who a long time ago and before hanging out here also felt that the Sherman was the worst tank ever.

In the end, the Sherman and the T-34 won WWII with help for all the other AFVs that where fielded, not the Panther and not the Tigers.

Sgt, Scouts out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Good to hear from you, Roy!

Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Roy_A_Lingle
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 1997
Location: El Paso & Ft Bliss, Texas
PostPosted: Sat Sep 08, 2012 11:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi Doug!

Good to hear from you, Love this thread. Reminds me of the way AFV News was a long time ago. We were learning a lot back then.

Sgt, Scouts out!

_________________
"You can never have too much reconnaissance."
General G.S. Patton Jr.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bialy-r
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 06, 2009
Posts: 1233
Location: POLAND
PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 8:05 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Sherman Hybrid Ic ?

in Cordoba (Argentina)

www.network54.com/Foru...+Sherman--
Back to top
View user's profile
piney
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 2330
Location: Republic of Southern New Jersey
PostPosted: Wed May 29, 2013 11:04 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Boy, hadn't noticed this thread, much more like the old days, dueling pistols at twenty paces. OK time for me to get into the line of fire.

A lot of changes had to made to the Sherman to use the 17 pounder
"
It was W.G.K. Kilbourn, a Vickers engineer at the time working for the Department of Tank Design, who transformed the prototype into the tank that would serve the British forces from D-day onwards. The first thing Kilbourn had to fix was the lack of a workable recoil system for the 17-pounder. The 17-pounder travelled 40 in (1.0 m) back as it absorbed the recoil of the blast. This was too long for the Sherman turret. Kilbourn solved this problem by redesigning the recoil system completely rather than modifying it. The recoil cylinders were shortened to allow the turret to take the gun and its recoil, and the new cylinders were placed on both sides of the gun to take advantage of the width of the Sherman's turret rather than be hindered by its height.

The gun breech itself was also rotated 90 degrees to allow for loading from the left rather than from on top. The radio which was mounted in the back of the turret in British tanks had to be moved. An armoured box (a "bustle") was attached to the back of the turret to house the radio. Access was through a large hole cut through the back of the turret.

The next problem encountered by Kilbourn was that the gun cradle, the metal block the gun sits on, had to be shortened to allow the gun to fit into the Firefly, and thus the gun itself was not very stable. Kilbourn had a new barrel designed for the 17-pounder that had a longer untapered section at the base, which helped solve the stability problem. A new mantlet was designed to house the new gun and accept the modified cradle. The modifications were extensive enough to require that 17-pounders intended for the Firefly had to be factory built specifically for it.

Kilbourn had to deal with other problems. On the standard Sherman tank, there was a single hatch in the turret through which the tank commander, gunner and loader entered and left the tank. However the 17-pounder's larger breech and recoil system significantly reduced the ability of the loader to quickly exit from the tank if it was hit. As a result, a new hatch was cut into the top of the turret over the gunner's position. The final major change was the elimination of the hull gunner in favour of space for more 17-pounder ammunition, which was significantly longer than the 75 mm shell and thus took up more room.
"

so it's not just a drop in the new gun and go, and you lose the hull MG that could be vital fighting infantry.

Regarding The Tiger's and Panther's. They were not mechanically reliable enough to meet US standards. Something like 40 % were lost due to breakdown. What good is a superior gun if you can't get it to the fight?

I think the policy of having a less powerful gun, but having it always available makes more sense then not having a gun 40% of the time.
OK open fire

_________________
The only good skwerril is a dead un
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
bialy-r
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 06, 2009
Posts: 1233
Location: POLAND
PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 7:39 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- bialy-r
Sherman Hybrid Ic ?

in Cordoba (Argentina)

www.network54.com/Foru...+Sherman--


Any help ? is that/was a Firefly ?
Back to top
View user's profile
the_shadock
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2865
Location: Normandy, France
PostPosted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:31 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- bialy-r
Sherman Hybrid Ic ?

in Cordoba (Argentina)

www.network54.com/Foru...+Sherman--


Sherman Ic hull with a normal 75mm turret (doesn't have the British loader's hatch beside the commander's cupola).

P-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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 4 of 5
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  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