ch0311 Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 I have found lately that I have been more interested in the Sherman Firefly. I have read that only about 600-650 Firefly of any type were produced. I am just wondering if this is true. Chris McWilliam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 Yep. You're right. In all, about 600 Fireflies were produced. Since the Challenger was not available for the Normanday landings, it was produced as a stop gap until the Challenger became available. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 That number seems low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch0311 Posted December 5, 2000 Author Share Posted December 5, 2000 I think that they were a fantastic tank, I don't know if I would have liked to have been in one, Ive heard that the Germans always targetted them first. Chris McWilliam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lord General MB Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 Soldiers, Just another low grade sherman, but with a hi velocity gun! No match for a Pershing or Panther though.... ------------------ Salute! Lord General Mr. Bill Supreme Commander 1st Army Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 I believe it was a 4 man tank with no bow gunner/radio operator. It would then be more of a overwatch vehicle or a wingman vehicle. That is, always on the platoon commanders right or left wing and moving with him. Since the tank is really a reworked vehicle; its production would have been low but 600 does seem kind of rare. Ive read the gun was offered to the US but it was turned down. This and the decision of not going full tilt to pershings was a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 The scarcity of this tank was due to small numbers of the 17pdr AT gun. AT units were given higher priority than the tank producers. The Americans wanted to put 17pdrs in some of their Shermans but the British said there was not enough. I've often wondered why we did'nt put 90mms in Shermans as a stop gap before the Pershings came out. Does anyone know what weapon the Isrealis used in their "Super Shermans"? ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 I believe the Super Sherman had a high velocity 105mm mounted. They can give any Russian vehicle up to a T-62 a good run for their money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 The firefly also had a -5 degree limit on its depression of the main gun. For a tall tank this is a slight drawback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Degrees of Frost Posted December 5, 2000 Share Posted December 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wayne: The scarcity of this tank was due to small numbers of the 17pdr AT gun. AT units were given higher priority than the tank producers. The Americans wanted to put 17pdrs in some of their Shermans but the British said there was not enough. I've often wondered why we did'nt put 90mms in Shermans as a stop gap before the Pershings came out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have heard it was the other way around. I read somewhere-or-other that the Brits offered the Americans Firefly conversion kits but the offer wasn't taken up. Instead they went with the 90mm. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr Brian: Since the Challenger was not available for the Normanday landings, it was produced as a stop gap until the Challenger became available <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought both the Firefly and the Challengers were both stop gaps - to be used until the Centurion and perhaps, a better example would be the Comet, were available in numbers. The British army tried to shoehorn the 17-pounder into everything they had available - the Archer for example squeezed a 17-pounder into- a bloody ugly contraption that couldn't fire until the driver got his head out of the way of the recoil mechanism. The Black Prince, which would have been a bit of a hand full in the CM universe, was an attempt to get a 17-pounder attached to a Churchill - the Centurion crueled that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Degrees of Frost: The Black Prince, which would have been a bit of a hand full in the CM universe, was an attempt to get a 17-pounder attached to a Churchill - the Centurion crueled that one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm wondering, if they had developed the "Black Prince" would the next development after that have been called a "Black Adder"? Just a thought.. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 The Super Sherman was first upgraded with a version of the gun used on the Panther. "After the war, modified Panther's 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun was produced by French as 75mm DEFA and CN75-50 gun. It was used by them in a number of light tanks (eg. AMX 13) and armored cars (eg. EBR 75). Also, Israelis used the gun to upgrade their M50 Super Sherman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 According to my favourite website on the matter of Commonwealth armour http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/21agt-3.htm , in June 1945 there were 300 Fireflies in service, and 750 in depot. Even a mathematically challenged person like me sees that this is more than 600-650. Add in losses during the campaign, and the number must have been substantially higher. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a > Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. [This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Pike Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 The second upgrade to the Israeli Super-Sherman involved fitting a new turret with a shortened version of the French CH-105-F1 105mm gun (taken from the AMX 30)to M4A3s and a few M4A3E2. The new gun (D1504)fired mainly HEAT ammunition as did the gun in the AMX 30. The new Sherman was designated M51 HV and saw extensive service from 1960? to just prior to the invasion of the Lebannon. This gun had a lower muzzle velocity than versions of the British 105mm L7 used in most other Western tanks (Centurion, Merkava I, M60, M1, Leopard 1?) which might explain how it was possible to fit one on a Sherman [This message has been edited by Private Pike (edited 12-08-2000).] must learn how to spell [This message has been edited by Private Pike (edited 12-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 The reason the 90mm gun never went into a Sherman is most probably that the turret wasn't large or strong enough to handle the bulk and recoil of the gun. This, along with "can't put any more armor on and still be mobile" is what maxed out the development of the PZIV. The tank's turret just couldn't hack a gun more potent than the 75mm/L48. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theron Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Since we are on the topic of British tanks, I was wondering how many Churchills were made. I'm particularly interested in the latter variety with the real heavy armor. Without a gun like the 17-pdr, the consensus on the board seems to be that Churchills are relatively non-leathal to German tanks. This is particularly true when they are up against Panthers and larger tanks. Since the 1.1 beta I have found that the Churchill VIII is actually a great German tank killer as long as it has the hollow/C shells. The Churchill VIII is now more likely to use its hollow shells, just like other tanks are more likely to use tungsten/T shells. The VIII gets 1-9 rounds of this type of ammo, which has a penetration of 125mm. The average number of hollow shells seems to be 5. The 95mm gun has a blast of 58, which also makes it great against infantry. There are also bow and coaxial MGs. The only draw back is that the tank is slow, but it has a fast turret. I recently played against the AI where it had panthers or tigers and I had Churchill VIIIs. I beat it both times with only losing one Churchill. I thought that maybe this was because of my superior tactics, but I decided to test the Churchill VIII head to head against Tigers and I got the following result. There are 10 tanks on each side and they are told to aim at the tank directly accross from them. After 1 turn the results are: 500m 10 KO tiger 2 KO Churchill, 2 immobile 10 KO tiger 1 KO Churchill 10 KO tiger 0 KO Churchill 1000m 9 KO tiger 0 KO Churchill 6 KO tiger 1 Churchill immobile 8 KO tiger 2 gun damge Churchill At 1000m the Churchills were less accrurate than the Tigers, but survived all the hits by the Tigers. In the tests I gave all the Churchills 5 hollow shells, probably gives them a slight advatage. Almost all the hollow shells were used up at 1000m, but at 500m the Churchill VIIIs were very accurate and only used up 2-3 hollow shells. I made all of the crews Vets since regulars in Chruchills didn't always use the hollow charges against the German tanks when I played the AI in a couple of games. These results seem a historical. If the Churchill VIII was so effective against German tansk using the hollow shells, why not build more of them and make more hollow shells? No need to bother with developing that black prince mod. I would guess that the Chruchills were a liability when it came time to get them to the front, slow and heavy. Were they also more likely to break down since there weren't as many made as compared to the Sherman? I was also wondering if hollow/C shells fired from guns were as effective as they are portrayed in CM? Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: The reason the 90mm gun never went into a Sherman is most probably that the turret wasn't large or strong enough to handle the bulk and recoil of the gun. This, along with "can't put any more armor on and still be mobile" is what maxed out the development of the PZIV. The tank's turret just couldn't hack a gun more potent than the 75mm/L48. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The M36 Jackson turret with the 90mm gun would drop right into the Sherman chassis, 187 of these M36B2 conversions were actually made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theron Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 I checked out Andreas's website and it seemed to answer part of my question. They only had 54 Churchill 5/8s in June of 1944. In latter dates they don't list the Chruchill 8s at all. I'm not sure if that's because there weren't any or if because the Chruchill 8 was redesignated to some letter combination. There are a lot of Chrchills listed that have letter combinations that aren't included in CM. I'm no expert so I don't know what these other Churchills are equiped with. At least part of my question is answered. It would be extreemely rare historically to see a platoon Churchill 8s in battle together when facing the British. Theron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgdpzr Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Theron, I too love the Churchill VIII. That monster is one of my favorite British tanks, and certainly my favorite Churchill. Sure, its lack of mobility is a serious pain in the butt, but I love its combination of thick armor, infantry lethality and anti-armor capability when it has those cartridges. My Churchill VIII was about the only thing that permitted me to eke out a draw in one of my last pbems when it took out both of my enemy's Panthers on first-shot kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 machineman, I was referring only to the strength of the stock Sherman turret, not to any aspect of the chassis itself. The turret of the Jackson was probably special-built for the purpose of carrying the 90mm gun, right? The Sherman turret was only designed around the 75m gun; putting the 76 (and the 17 pdr) in the turret required a new turret with a big counterweight and, I imagine, all kinds of recoil gear changes. I really doubt the Sherman's turret could take the stress of the 90mm gun. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 I see what you were getting at. It would be probably impossible to retrofit existing Shermans while keeping the same turret. I still wonder why they did not just ship over a bunch of 90mm turrets and retro fit that way (probably a lot quicker than modifying), or better yet, had built a 90mm Super Sherman instead of a 76 mm version right from the beginning, sort of like what the Russians did with the T-34/85. The apparent ease of creating 90mm Shermans this way makes the whole 'we just have to put up with the 75/76mm because we can't design a whole new tank' line of reasoning look a bit weak, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted December 8, 2000 Share Posted December 8, 2000 Well, IIRC very few Jacksons were produced during the war. So I'd guess that A) there weren't many 90mm guns available to stick on tanks or there wasn't much 90mm ammunition for them. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts