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

Hi folks,

well I think that the TD may not have been blocking the introduction of an more powerfull gun, officially
However I also think they where not to happy with the idea and mostlikly when asked they wouldn't have said that it would be an good option
From what I know about the US TD branch, at the beginning of WW2 they where not even keep on putting there AT gun on track's
Only after complaints of the frontline that the AT guns good not keep pace with the rest of the army, they started shift to SP versions

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


Let's hope so

Some-one else has something to discuss ?
I'm open to all points concerning AFV's, except one thing: paint colors


About mixing them up
After the war the Dutch army also used the 3 different gun sizes, however I dont know how these tanks where mixed together

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: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
Hi folks,

....I'm open to all points concerning AFV's, except one thing: paint colors

Michel


I think you're going to fit right in here. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:22 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi,

For all of the 'old' AFV News site alumnus, we had a fairly long discussion about this on 'ye olde borde'. That discussion was mainly focused on the delays in fielding the 90mm guns, but I recall a good deal of good information regarding the differences between the 17 pdr and the 76mm.

There was some fairly well reasoned and documented arguments that involved the poor performance (nonavailability?) of the 17 pdr HE rounds. The War Department placed a good deal of importance on the availability of the HE rounds, partly because of lingering traces of doctrine emphasizing the infantry-support aspects of armor tactics. I seem to recall some knowledgeable assertions that British industry simply couldn't supply adequate numbers of the 17 pdr guns and ammunition without shorting their own forces. Apparently the 76mm gun was actually in development well before it was deemed necessary for installation in Sherman tanks, and it was relatively simple to ramp production up and supply conversion kits that would exactly match the existing chassis.

I believe that "shatter gap" played a role, somehow, in ways that I'm apparently too thick to grasp. At least I THINK that is what he was trying to say... Shocked Rolling Eyes Smile

I'm not sure if any of that was archived, but I though it was interesting that the discussion isn't really new for some of us! Welcome Wink

Chuck

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:49 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Here is a tech paper abstract on shatter gap.
oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&...=ADA284904

If you more just Google. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:45 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

C. Sherman brings up memories of the old discussions (We all looked at the elephant from slightly different angles)

I believe that some of the folks that complain about the choices made for equiping American forces in WWII minimize the effort and time required in making a change. The Northwest European campaign was actually fairly short (only 11 months from D-Day to V-E day) and equipment being used had been produced in some case 2 years before and stockpiles built up in preperation for the high consumption rates of an active campaign. At the same time the priorities of this campaign were only a few of the many competing priorities of a global war. Once the Army decided where it's priorities were for 75mm, 76mm, 90mm, etc they had to present those priorities to 'War Production Boards' that had similar information from the Navy, Air Force, Industrial Production, Allied Procurement. The allocation of 'machine shop' resources had to balance out the various needs. Shutting down a plant to convert it from 'outmoded' 3" AA guns to 76mm or 17pdr guns would probably be fought by the Navy which wanted more medium AA guns for the Pacific Fleet, Allied Procurement that would rather have production continue because the 3" was acceptable to the Chinese who were just starting to recieve shipments after the higher priority needs had been met and the Industrial Production folks who want to use the machine tools to make more machine tools so they can give you twice as many 76mm in six months once they build the machines to equip two more factories.

Then the 'doctrine' arguments come in to play. The well known ones (because it is generally accepted it was flawed) like TDs v Tanks as well as lessor thought of ones that decided that tanks would probably spend more time in infantry support than in killing other tanks (Yes I know the two are related but everything is related eventually) If you accept the need to equip the tanks to handle multiple tasks like infantry support you have to make a doctrinal decision on how to balance the roles. The U.S. Army settled on a 'jack of all trades' doctrine that set a broad doctrine that the main armament had to do an adequate job of handling H.E. type (bursting) targets as well as penetrating (Tank Killing) targets. The British leaned much further towards the main tank gun as being a penetrating weapon. In the pre and early war years it lead to two versions of each tank. One (the primary production model) had a higher velocity wepon that fired solid shot to penetrate. The other (in much lower production and deployment) was equiped with a howitzer that fired smoke and H.E. rounds. In Brazen Chariots robert Crisp laments the fact they did not have a good weapon to counter their nemesis the AT gun. Even after the British moved to the larger guns (6pdr and 75mm) they retained the diachotomy of penetrating and bursting weapons. While the American AP rounds were designed with a bursting charge in them rounds supplied to the British were not filled with the HE filler.

The U.S. recognized the need for a multipurpose weapon and early on settled on the medium velocity 75mm. At the time it had good penetration and good bursting capability. As opposing tanks got thicker skins the penetraing capability quickly went down to 'barely adequate' While a partial solution was in the pipeline with the 76mm I think they correctly saw the need for a balanced weapon that continued to provide a good bursting capability. How much evaluation went into deciding which would be used the most I don't know but I think they got the balance right. More use was actually made of the tank gun as a bursting (i.e. H.E. delivery) weapon than as a tank killing weapon. I think that if they had had the foresight to step up to a 90mm class weapon earlier we wouldn't even be having this discussion but I don't think that spending a lot of effort in adapting a foreign specialist weapon would have been the right way to go.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I feel I have just opened up a time warp to the old pre spam bot site Laughing

It's nice to have a discussion like this happening again. I learn quite a bit from these.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Let's start up the fire an little higher Twisted Evil

After the US invasion of Northern Africa, operation Torch 1942-11, it was already clear that the Sherman lacked behind in fire power
However in 1944-06 there was little to no change in this

In the meantime:
- The German army switched from the 75mm on the Pz IV to the even more deadly 75mm on the Pz 5
- The Russian army had changed from the T34/76 to the T34/85
- The British army had changed from Crusaders to Churchill. I know they classified their tanks different, however they tried to do something

So why was it clear to al nations to upgrade their weapons to an more powerful type of weapon
And the US did not, untill the last month of the war??

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: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss


So why was it clear to al nations to upgrade their weapons to an more powerful type of weapon
And the US did not, untill the last month of the war??

Michel


The short answer is logistics (and inertia in the system). The domestic war machine production lines were humming along nicely, the outcome of the conflict was not really in question, and there were constraints to what could be changed in a period of time that would affect the outcome when what was already being done was working (looking at the overall). New guns, bigger tanks (M26) all incur delays and other complications (production, shipping, support) when the numbers were working for the allies with what they had.

Fair to the crews? Probably not.
Effective in the end result? Outcome speaks for itself.
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: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Doug_Kibbey
The short answer is logistics (and inertia in the system). The domestic war machine production lines were humming along nicely, the outcome of the conflict was not really in question, and there were constraints to what could be changed in a period of time that would affect the outcome when what was already being done was working (looking at the overall). New guns, bigger tanks (M26) all incur delays and other complications (production, shipping, support) when the numbers were working for the allies with what they had


That's an interresting point of view, logistic's
However development on the Sherman follow-up, being the M26, already started beginning 1942
And this development was dropped, later on in 1942, to an absolute minimum effort because command decided that the Sheman was still adéquat
At that periode of time the outcome of the war was not decided
An positive outcome became possible in 1943

Command already knew in 1942 that the Sherman was no match for the Tiger 1 or the long barreled 75mm Pz IV
They had that experienced in Africa and the other allies (being UK and Russia) told them that Germany was developing new weapons

The logistic point of shipping is also interresting
Why was it possible to ship complete steam locomtives, however not an heavier tank?

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: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss


That's an interresting point of view, logistic's
However development on the Sherman follow-up, being the M26, already started beginning 1942
And this development was dropped, later on in 1942, to an absolute minimum effort because command decided that the Sheman was still adéquat
At that periode of time the outcome of the war was not decided
An positive outcome became possible in 1943

Command already knew in 1942 that the Sherman was no match for the Tiger 1 or the long barreled 75mm Pz IV
They had that experienced in Africa and the other allies (being UK and Russia) told them that Germany was developing new weapons

The logistic point of shipping is also interresting
Why was it possible to ship complete steam locomtives, however not an heavier tank?

Michel


1. Development is not production, it takes quite a while to convert prototype models and adapt existing lines to mass production....and assumes the product is even ready. The M26 wasn't and there were a number of unsatisfactory reports coming out of the evaluations board that revealed deficiencies that needed correction. Short version, as presented in the '42-'43 timeframe, the vehicle was unacceptable.

2. Logistics is more than altering load plans on transport ships. It's having a pool of replacement parts, trained crews, adequate supplies of ammo, and infrastructure to support transport on the other side of the pond. Engineers, for example, objected mightily to the weight and width of the M26 as it exceeded the capacity of the bridging that was correctly foreseen as necessary for European operations. Parking places on Liberty Ships are perhaps not the least of the problems, but they certainly don't end there.

Could things have been done better or more expediently? Sure.
Was the solution set adequate to the task at hand? Apparently so.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Kurt_Laughlin
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 577

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Although the US Army had known of the Tiger and Panther in 1942-1943, they were rarely encountered and presumed to be heavy tanks, not the main weapons of the panzer divisions. While a difficult foe, it was thought that the Germans would continue to field the Pz IV as their main weapon. This was the tank we expected to fight. (And I'm not certain that the Pz IV *wasn't* the tank most commonly seen in the ETO after all.) The realization that there was something bigger out there *that we would have to fight regularly* didn't come until June/July 1944.

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I'll chime in here

1) "After the US invasion of Northern Africa, operation Torch 1942-11, it was already clear that the Sherman lacked behind in fire power
However in 1944-06 there was little to no change in this"

In Nov 42 The Sherman was 'state of the art' In fact deliveries were in short supply because of the ones that were rushed to 8th Army in Egypt ( A long trip all the way around Africa) The first shipment was sunk and had to be replaced at the last minute. The Convoy left the east coast US at the end of July and arrived in Egypt Sept 2.
www.usmm.org/seatraintexas.html

(This was one of two very special ships that was designed to haul heavy rail equipment and perfect for hauling tanks. 70 ton crains and high clearance heavy duty decks)

With all this being sent to the British the Americans in TORCH had to keep their M3 Lees. Somewhere else said that in '42 they should have known that the Sherman was inferior to the Tiger. I think the Tiger didn't debut until Mid 43 (about the same time as the Panther) So until they came out in Mid 43 (not 42) There was no direct proof that the Sherman was outclassed.. Yes it could be expected and work was being done on larger tanks but there was no direct evidence.

So IF at the immediate appearance of the Tiger in North Africa (May 43?) a rush effort was started to modify a Sherman with a larger gun there would be a year to develop, test, build train and deploy the new version to have it ready for D-Day. This MAY have been possible if everyone would have agreed it was neccesary but with the end user not seeing it as a major emergency it didn't get the priority it would have needed. As it was the 76mm version went into production in Feb '44 and was starting to appear in units at D-Day. That was a pretty good job

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:31 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I usually don't get into these type discussions since my Sherman knowledge is lacking.

However, I do think that there is one 'exception'. Case in point is the M4A3E2. The earliest 'mention' to the idea is Feb 44, limited production in May/June/July 44, Shipment beginning in Sept 44, and in the hands of the Troops beginning in Sept 44. Now thats fast, even by todays standards......

BUT doesn't really prove anything except there is always one exception to any case......

I'll shut up & try to learn somemore from this kniowledgable panel. A very deep discussion that is an excellent read.

Thanks
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:48 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

But Don,

It actually proves the opposite,

Specialty vehicle made specifically for ETO and then dropped like a hot potato when the war ended. The one advantage was she did use the 75mm and later 76mm gun so ammo wouldn't be an issue like the 17pdr.

I'll shut up & try to learn somemore from this kniowledgable panel


I feel the same way on this one but I don't use the "Bugs Bunny" vernacular
kniowledgable
Laughing

Eagerly awaiting more on this subject

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

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:17 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Joe

Actually I was sorta leaning to the 'concept to combat' in general. I don't know of any other Armored Vehicle that bridged that gap so quickly,....EVER!

But since the M4A3E2 was only a modified M4A3, able to use onhand items or supplies there really wasn't any changes to the 'LOG trail'. Although it did present some transportation issues.

Of course with the whole Sherman issue (or more properly Medium tank...), I see it as a 'good enough' solution and became more of a Mass production issue of 'Quantity over Quality'. (Not implying that it wasn't a well built machine, but definitely not the 'Wunder Waffe' that the German Heavy Tanks was termed)

Just my 2 cents
Regards
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 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