Fireflys, a grog question

[Georgie]

Was it unusual for a US unit to have Fireflys attached for an attack? Or did it happen at all?

[Michael Emrys]

Good question. AFAIK the US had no Fireflies during the Normandy campaign, but I wouldn't bet the farm that it was absolutely zero. As far as later in the war, I've heard rumors of a few getting swapped around, but again, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. It would not have been standard equipment because SFAIK there was no logistical support on the US side for them and arranging something would have required a special effort, such as was the case for 25 pdr reverse Lend-Lease during the winter of '44-'45. Secondly, the armored forces were more or less satisfied with the 76 mm gun, even though the 17 pdr was a superior AT weapon.

Michael

[Georgie]

Good question. AFAIK the US had no Fireflies during the Normandy campaign, but I wouldn't bet the farm that it was absolutely zero. As far as later in the war, I've heard rumors of a few getting swapped around, but again, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. It would not have been standard equipment because SFAIK there was no logistical support on the US side for them and arranging something would have required a special effort, such as was the case for 25 pdr reverse Lend-Lease during the winter of '44-'45. Secondly, the armored forces were more or less satisfied with the 76 mm gun, even though the 17 pdr was a superior AT weapon.

Michael

Thanks Michael for the response. What was the "reverse Lend-Lease" with the 25pdr all about?

[JonS]

For various reasons the US faced a severe shortage of 105mm ammn over the winter of 44-45.

For various reasons the UK had a surplus of 25pr ammn and guns over the winter of 44-45.

Being grownups, and Allies, they managed to work out an amicable solution from those two data points

Incidentally, the US also equipped a couple of battalions with captured German guns, partly for the same reason, and partly I suspect because a) they could, and someone thought 'Hey, cool. Let's try this!'

[winkelried]

From what I know the only Firefly's deployed by the U.S. Army were 12 pieces delivered to 555th Tank Batallion in Italy in April 1945. They didn't see frontline service.

The U.S. Army started the program in March 1945 with an order of 160 Fireflys (IC i believe). First shipment took place on 5th March with 3 pieces. The first 80 had departed the UK on 4th May 1945. I think the basis for the conversion were M4A3s.

[Sgt Joch]

In the Canadian/British doctrine, plain jane Shermans accompanied an attack as infantry support. Fireflies were generaly attached to the follow on AT support units to defend against the usual German counter attack. Not sure what the U.S. did though.

[JonS]

In the Canadian/British doctrine, plain jane Shermans accompanied an attack as infantry support. Fireflies were generaly attached to the follow on AT support units to defend against the usual German counter attack. Not sure what the U.S. did though.

That's interesting. Do you mean they deliberately split the tank troops so some went in with the attack, and some - the 'flys - waited around till later?

[noob]

someone thought 'Hey, cool. Let's try this!'

Lol...... !

[Elmar Bijlsma]

That's interesting. Do you mean they deliberately split the tank troops so some went in with the attack, and some - the 'flys - waited around till later?

Not quite.

The Fireflies would still be in direct support of the tanks going forward. They'd be providing the AT overwatch for the 75s going forward. This preserved the troop's heavy hitter for when he was needed and seemed to have allowed the Firefly commander a better overview of the battle then being in the thick of it would allow.

As far as I can tell it worked well enough.

[JonS]

Hmm. What you wrote, Elmar, is about what I'd expect (pace Buckley, et al); 75mm tanks working somewhat more intimately with the infantry, and the 'fly somewhat less intimately. But all four still reasonably close to each other, and to the supported infantry.

But Joch seems to be describing something a bit different - "plain jane Shermans accompanied an attack as infantry support. Fireflies were generally attached to the follow on AT support units to defend against the usual German counter attack" implies, to me, a definite separation in time and space between the three 75mms and the 17-pr. That's what got me curious.

Jon

[The Teacher]

They worked as a team - 1XFirefly, 3xShermans.

Some cases of Fireflys teaming up to dish out some 17lb love.

[dieseltaylor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly

Discusses usage and gives battle examples. Amusingly:

Ken Tout, who served as a tank gunner and tank commander in the 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry in 1944 Normandy campaign, had been trained to operated the 17-pound canon prior to being deployed to Normandy. He described the impact of mounting a 17-pound canon in the Sherman:“ The Firefly tank is an ordinary Sherman but, in order to accommodate the immense breech of the 17-pounder and to store its massive shells, the co-driver has been eliminated and his little den has been used as storage space. The electrical traversing gear makes it easy to swing the gun around ... The flash is so brilliant that both gunner and commander need to blink at the moment of firing. Otherwise they will be blinded for so long that they will not see the shot hit the target. The muzzle flash spurts out so much flame that, after a shot or two, the hedge or undergrowth in front of the tank is likely to start burning. When moving, the gun's overlap in front or, if traversed, to the side is so long that driver, gunner and commander have to be constantly alert to avoid wrapping the barrel around some apparently distant tree, defenceless lamp-post or inoffensive house.[13]

[Michael Emrys]

They worked as a team - 1XFirefly, 3xShermans.

This seems to be the formation that was eventually arrived at and became more or less standardized. I have also read somewhere that as Fireflies became more abundant later in the war, some troops had two in addition to two 75 mm armed Shermans.

Some cases of Fireflys teaming up to dish out some 17lb love.

Ian Daglish in his excellent Over the Battlefield series of books mentions that early in the campaign some squadron and regiment commanders grouped the Fireflies into homogenous troops with the idea of concentrating their firepower where it was most needed. My guess this ran up against the difficulty of actually getting them where they were needed in time to do some good.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

Hmm. What you wrote, Elmar, is about what I'd expect (pace Buckley, et al); 75mm tanks working somewhat more intimately with the infantry, and the 'fly somewhat less intimately. But all four still reasonably close to each other, and to the supported infantry.

But Joch seems to be describing something a bit different - "plain jane Shermans accompanied an attack as infantry support. Fireflies were generally attached to the follow on AT support units to defend against the usual German counter attack" implies, to me, a definite separation in time and space between the three 75mms and the 17-pr. That's what got me curious.

Jon

From what I read (Copp, "Fields of Fire"), the Canadians practiced the "bite and hold" offensive doctrine, namely infantry would attack and occupy the objective, supported by artillery and plain jane Shermans to deal with enemy infantry positions/MG nests.

Once on the objective, the infantry would dig in, AT guns/Wolverines/fireflies would be brought up to deal with German AFVs during the counterattack.

Because firefly tanks were relatively low in number in Normandy and were the only ones that could reliably deal with Tigers/Panthers, they were primarily used in a mobile AT role to deal with enemy armour.