Firefly IIC ? Stuart Kangaroo?

[M Hofbauer]

courtesy of DEF BUNGIS:

[DEF BUNGIS]

M haufbauer:

Thanks for hosting the PIC.

I guess it doesn't look to bad.

Now the way I see it, the chassis looks smaller than the M4A1 chassis. Width wise.

I dunno, i'm not an armorment expert.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[This message has been edited by DEF BUNGIS (edited 08-26-2000).]

[cbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS:

M haufbauer:

Thanks for hosting the PIC.

I guess it doesn't look to bad.

Now the way I see it, the chassis looks smaller than the M4A1 chassis. Width wise.

I dunno, i'm not an armorment expert.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, thank for posting it. Even though it is difficult to see what the hell is under all that camouflage, it is evidently not a VC as it does not have the long hull of that vehicle.

It does not look like a Sherman II though, the rear hull is much too "boxy" and the pronounced "peak" of the hull side near the turret looks a lot like the a welded hull Sherman or perhaps a IC Hybrid.

I dont think this photo will rock the the armour community in its foundations

Claus B

[DEF BUNGIS]

Can someone explain why there are rounded muzzles on some barrels and on others there's just straight tubing.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[cbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS:

Can someone explain why there are rounded muzzles on some barrels and on others there's just straight tubing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not shure what you referring to, but in the case of the Firefly picture, the round thing at the end of the muzzle is the muzzlebrake. Some guns have it, others have not and it comes in all shapes and sizes.

Claus B

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cbo:

I am not shure what you referring to, but in the case of the Firefly picture, the round thing at the end of the muzzle is the muzzlebrake. Some guns have it, others have not and it comes in all shapes and sizes.

Claus B

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, that's what i'm reffering to.

So what your telling me is you can't differentiate between different types of armorment by this?

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DEF BUNGIS:

So what your telling me is you can't differentiate between different types of armorment by this?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can if you know what they look like already. That pic, for instance, is classic 17 pdr, given away by the muzzle brake.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Bastables]

GRRRRRR

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Bastables]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Huh????? Where do you get that from, Bastables?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Sorry Babra, forgot to include the information that I inferred it from. In this case the info is sourced from Hunnicutt R.P. Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. Now it states that only the Sherman IC, IC late (hybrid) and VC were ever put into ‘production’, as it were. The British much like the USA preferred to use the same Sherman chassis within the battalions, the only notable exception being the mixing of Sherman VC in all European British units with Mark I and Mark II independent brigades and M4’s/M4A1 (or Mark I and Mark II) within American units due to there similar mechanical properties (engines, drive trains ete). Now this practice of utilising the same chassis within units insured that the polish-armoured divisions would have been the only units in europe to utilise IC’s. Even the Cromwell mounted units if not utilising Challengers used VC Fireflies exclusively. One has to remember the Mark I were left in theatre in the Med and continued to be shipped to Italy to replace losses, this tended to simplify the issue of spares and which Sherman went were for the British Quarter Masters. The Polish as always were a special case.

Again sorry for just throwing in unsupported comments chaps.

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Durruti]

Simon Fox posted some interesting stuff on British tank usage in this thread:

www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008760.html

He seems to have pretty detailed sources - love to know what they are. Regarding Fireflies, he reckoned only VC's were issued apart from two IC's to the Polish armoured division which would seem to contradict the evidence presented here?

[cbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Durruti:

Simon Fox posted some interesting stuff on British tank usage [snip]

He seems to have pretty detailed sources - love to know what they are.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am pretty shure that his source is

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/

Look under 21st Army Group Tanks.

Claus B

[Durruti]

Ahh I see...Thanks cbo, great site! It looks like Simon's Firefly comments only apply to June 1944. The later tables on the site only refer to '17pdr' Shermans and that photo posted by DEF BUNGIS/M Hofbauer is an 8th AB Firefly dated March 1945 in the Terry Wise book.

[Spook]

If someone is wired up to surviving members of 8th Armoured Brigade or related documents & official records, that might be a quicker way to resolve the photo image(s) under contention. Or can someone scan an M4A1 hull image? The T Wise book doesn't have many pictures of these for me to assess the rear-hull outline (which was the basis of my earlier opinions).

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

Here's a British Sherman IIA. I don't think there's any controversy that the two vehicles share the same hull.

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Spook]

Thanks for the guidepost picture, Babra.

My whole basis for "seeing" an M4A1 hull to the earlier Firefly's picture (from Def) is how I see the rear hull outline. I've looked at that picture from all kinds of angles (even near-level with the eye), and the rear hull top edge has a pronounced curvature from my view. The picture on pg. 60 of Wise's book (with the alleged IC hybrid) shows a top edge that is comparatively straighter.

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Spook:

Thanks for the guidepost picture, Babra.

My whole basis for "seeing" an M4A1 hull to the earlier Firefly's picture (from Def) is how I see the rear hull outline. I've looked at that picture from all kinds of angles (even near-level with the eye), and the rear hull top edge has a pronounced curvature from my view. The picture on pg. 60 of Wise's book (with the alleged IC hybrid) shows a top edge that is comparatively straighter.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spook, I think your seeing it correctly.

Both photo's have the same hull.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[Formerly Babra]

Mystery solved. Here's a nice clear pic of a Sherman IIC of the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick Hussars). Churchill track has been welded on for protection and the 17 pounder has been camouflaged to look like a 75, but there's no mistaking this vehicle. The caption underneath it read in part "many people say the IIC never existed..."

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 08-26-2000).]

[Spook]

Solved indeed. Babra scores on the rebound.

[M Hofbauer]

wasn't the Matchbox 1:76 Firefly a IIC ? I am serious, they usually researched the vehicles pretty well, and on the old boxes they would tell you exactly what unit, time and location the model depicted is from.

[DEF BUNGIS]

Thanks all.

I learned alot from this thread.

------------------

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[Herr Oberst]

Stuart Kangaroo???

Is it armored? yes...

Does it carry people? yes...

Well, there you have it! An APC!

*strictly tongue in cheek of course...*

[cbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

Mystery solved. Here's a nice clear pic of a Sherman IIC of the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick Hussars). Churchill track has been welded on for protection and the 17 pounder has been camouflaged to look like a 75, but there's no mistaking this vehicle. The caption underneath it read in part "many people say the IIC never existed..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is you still cannot see the rear hull and that is the critical part. The front hull could just as well be a IC Hybrid and probably is.

I you look at the hatches, they are the large ones used only in the Sherman I Hybrid and the M4A1(76mm) (Sherman IIA), not in the Sherman I. (GUAAARGH - that should read "not in the Sherman II (M4A1))

How come all the alleged Sherman IICs are always picture from the frontal arc, always have the rear obstructed by cammo, luggage, tracks etc. while all the clear photos are Sherman IC Hybrids?

Claus B

[This message has been edited by cbo (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cbo:

If you look at the hatches, they are the large ones used only in the Sherman I Hybrid and the M4A1(76mm) (Sherman IIA), not in the Sherman I.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right. Am I missing something? A IIC is a Sherman II armed with a 17 pounder. Why wouldn't the hatches be the same if it was converted from a IIA?

------------------

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[cbo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Formerly Babra:

You are right. Am I missing something? A IIC is a Sherman II armed with a 17 pounder. Why wouldn't the hatches be the same if it was converted from a IIA?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They would, but the Sherman IIA is the British designation for the M4A1 armed with the US 76mm gun in a new and completely different turret.

So if the critter pictured above is a Sherman IIC, then you have to accept that they ripped the new turret and 76mm gun off a Sherman IIA, basically gutted the vehicle for ammo stowage etc, then found a spare 17pdr turret and put it on top (if at all possible) and rebuilt the stowage arrangements. All this when they would have had plenty of 75mm armed Sherman Vs to put the turret on.

This is pretty far fetched and even if this is what happened, it would still only be a one-off like the Grizzly Firefly or the M4A3 Firefly.

Claus B

[This message has been edited by cbo (edited 08-27-2000).]

[Spook]

That's an interesting point about the hatches, cbo, but I'd like to see a picture of a front-facing M4A1 (Sherman II) to confirm this hatch aspect.

Also, you argued earlier that IC Hybrids had a relatively sharper edge to their front hull curvature than for an M4A1. The lighting on the front hull is quite sufficient to Babra's tank, IMO, to show no such "sharpness". So the portrayed tank is weighted to the IIC in my view.

Geez, we've only seemed to entrench deeper here in our views.

A new request to DEF: Can you get the photo of the IC Hybrid (alleged as such) on the top of Pg. 60 scanned, as well as the photo of the Firefly on pg. 61?

The funny thing to this whole topic's start (concerning the IIC) was the argument stated that the "IIC never existed because no photographic evidence exists to prove it." The "IIC" photos provided since are now argued as insufficient to prove the IIC. But they've similarly failed to prove Hybrid to me also.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-27-2000).]