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