- Hanno_Spoelstra
Trevor, we don't need curators' descriptions, they are notoriously bad as they don't wear anoraks like we do :lol:
True, but my point is that museums need to start caring about provenance, and that means starting with the serial number and researching a vehicle's history. It shouldn't be us doing their job for them. If it was an aircraft you can be sure they'd make more effort.
- Hanno_Spoelstra
A Firefly has a 17-pounder gun with all the amenities described above. So if someone re-converted a Sherman Firefly into another configuration, then the tank loses the "Firefly" tag (which is a nickname more than a proper designation, anyway).
To me the 'someone' is key. If a collector or re-enactor puts a Firefly turret on a standard Sherman I will record it as a standard Sherman, with a Firefly turret. If however the Italian or Belgian army puts a Firefly turret on a standard Sherman and it serves in that configuration then I record it as a Firefly (but an Italian or Belgian one, not a British one).
- Massimo_Foti
From what I can see Trevor's stance is "the hull rules", if the hull came from a Firefly, Trevor will flag it as a Firefly, basically, in the scenario above, he will pick the hull.
All other things being equal, yes that is correct. Hence the tanks I have recorded as Fireflies even though they no longer have a Firefly turret or 17pdr. However, that can be trumped (see the previous paragraph) - if a tank has served in an army as a Firefly (a Firefly turret on a different hull) then it's a Firefly. Even the first British Fireflies didn't have all the characteristics we now consider to indicate a Firefly, but they were Fireflies nonetheless.
Increasingly the best answer I am finding is to make clearer categories. Once I have more examples of a tank in the database I can make finer distinctions. In this case I will likely create categories for British, Italian and Belgian Fireflies, and the text will explain the characteristics in this case. For example, I am just getting to the point where I have started to do this with the M47 Patton with its Italian Service section.
- Massimo_Foti
Other may be facing even harder choices, for example, should we put Fireflies among american or british tanks? There no definitive answer to such a question...
This was a hard choice for me at one time and I agonised over it. I now absolutely define a tank by the nationality of its hull design, and have never regretted that move. For me the Firefly comes under Sherman tanks, which are under American tanks:
Preserved American Tanks: Volume 2
There are sections there for Fireflies, Ishermans, FL10s, etc. Having experience of writing about tank development it has become for me the only choice. When writing about the Firefly you need to have described the history and development of the Sherman, much less relevant is the history of British tanks. At first glance it may appear to throw up anomalies (e.g. the US M1917 and Soviet KS are in a chapter with the FT), but it very quickly makes perfect sense. My only regret is that I didn't follow it absolutely when I wrote Preserved German Tanks, and included the Hetzer, Marder I, etc. Now they would come under Czechoslovak and French tanks respectively.