Firefly IIC ? Stuart Kangaroo?

[Durruti]

Just as a point of information, the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick Hussars) was a Canadian unit that served exclusively in Italy as part of 5th Canadian AD.

[cbo]

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

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.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the side hull of the I Hybrid around the turret is a tad more "peaked" than in the Sherman II. The front hull is nearly identical. But it would impossible to really see either way under all that cammo, tracks etc.

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

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A slight correction. There is no pictoral evidence of the IIC, nor is there any source material to prove its existence. All the books I've seen that claims that there were such a thing as the IIC either shows a picture of the IC Hybrid or something that could be anything and does not give any pointers to production orders, field-manuals etc. anyting, something that could actually prove its existence.

The Hybrid does not need proving. There is a ****load of nice photos of vehicles with little if anything obstructing the view of the vehicle. Asking me to prove the Hybrid is like asking me to prove that there ever was a German Tiger tank

But here is a picture of a Sherman Firefly IC Hybrid complete with Typhoon rockets.

Claus B

[mccooper]

Sorry old boy but this particular tank

"Mystery solved. Here's a nice clear pic of a Sherman IIC of the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick Hussars)."

has been discussed in depth before and its not a IIC - its a pic of IC Hybrid from the 8th Hussars taken in the Netherlands in 45. So the mystery isn't solved yet.

The author of web site this photo was taken from puts this pic forward as proof and its not a bad pic - but just not of a IIC although it makes for a great debate. The webmaster happens to be one of the few supporters of the IIC.

There have been a number of discussions on this pic (especially when it was initially posted) including one on Track Link. Once TL is back online I'll do a search for the thread so I don't miss anything.

The other pic on page 2 is also a tad boxy on the rear end which makes it a Hybrid in my opinion.

[Spook]

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

The Hybrid does not need proving. There is a ****load of nice photos of vehicles with little if anything obstructing the view of the vehicle. Asking me to prove the Hybrid is like asking me to prove that there ever was a German Tiger tank

Claus B

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I ONLY meant the two pictures in contention here, cbo, as to whether THOSE two tanks are showing a IC Hybrid in lieu of a IIC. My quoted statement didn't mean that I questioned the IC Hybrid's existence in general, that was recognized earlier.

OK, folks, pause to catch breath..... I misread the meaning to your "hatch" (II/IIA) comment on my first read, cbo, and so it seems we have turnabout.

But I finally found my Squadron/Signal reference on the Sherman tank (No. 16), with GOBS of pictures on all kinds of versions. The pictures are only for US-fielded tanks, though, and no Firefly section (curious omission). The front section of the US M4 composites, though, do have a close match to the M4A1 front contours.

And on your "hatch" issue, cbo, I can now see your point better. The early/mid M4A1 versions (with 75mm armanent) use a different hatch type than seen for the M4A1-76 (IIA) and the M4 "composite hull", both of which started to show in '44. So a straight Sherman II Firefly conversion (showing the early hatches) is the missing link to photographic evidence so far here. As such, one can still argue strongly that the early Sherman II never converted to a Firefly.

What still remains open is if any of the Sherman IIA's delivered to Britain underwent re-conversion. Most IIA's went to the MTO for the Italian Campaign. So if the tank in Babra's picture is portrayed on the Italian, then MAYBE a IIA/Firefly conversion might've been applied. Similarly, a few IIA's did make it to the ETO (VERY limited in numbers, though, serving only with the Polish armour), and this still allows speculation that IIA's still available in Britain might have undergone conversion before being shipped. Yes, cbo, you've detailed your reasons earlier as to the potential hassles (especially to re-switch turrets from the T23 type) for such a conversion, but if facilities and the tank chassis's were available for the job, it remains a possibility.

The pictures in Wise's book (pg. 51, 61)attribute the alleged IIC's as being part of 8th Armoured Brigade. Again, it would be resolved quicker if official records on this brigade could be accessed to indicate specific tank deliveries.

[Formerly Babra]

I'm quite happy to be wrong on the pics. It supports my original contention

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

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[DEF BUNGIS]

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

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?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do we still want the PICS?

I'll go ahead and get a scan on them.

I'll make these smaller.

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

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

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

[M Hofbauer]

DEF,

you can send em on over to me again to me if you need hosting.

[Formerly Babra]

I'm pretty much hoping that cbo is right, and that these are all IC Hybrids. It certainly wouldn't make much sense to change turrets on a IIA (though I doubt it's as difficult a conversion as suggested) when more likely candidates are available.

Still no word from BTS on THEIR reasoning for inclusion of the IIC.

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

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[cbo]

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

I'm pretty much hoping that cbo is right, and that these are all IC Hybrids. It certainly wouldn't make much sense to change turrets on a IIA (though I doubt it's as difficult a conversion as suggested) when more likely candidates are available.

Still no word from BTS on THEIR reasoning for inclusion of the IIC.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helge just send me some CM data and from that it seems that they have a Sherman IIC but not a IC. So I guess it could simply be a blooper.

Regarding the rebuild of the vehicle, the turret rings of the Sherman IIA and the VC are the same, but the interior layout is rather different. There would be no room for the 17pdr rounds in the wet stowage boxes for 76mm ammo on the hull floor, so basically the whole ammo stowage would have to go and be replaced by Firefly 17pdr bins. The turret basket of the two turrets were also different, but whether that would have any effects on the fittings inside the IIC hull, I dont know.

But it would require some effort for the fitters in the field.

But of course, anything is possible, I wont dispute that, I just like to see some proof that it was done before accepting it.

Claus B

[Spook]

One could just e-mail to Steve & Charles, but I save from doing that unless I come across a pressing game issue. This IIC issue doesn't quite make the cut for me.

Even allowing, for the moment, that a IIC did exist, I can readily agree with all others that the IC Hybrid was much more likely to come across, especially in NW Europe (where stock IIA's were very few anyway).

So on that note, I fired up CM to check out the Firefly VC/IIC specs. In terms of armor protection & engine horsepower, the two CM Firefly types are very close (with the IIC having a slight armor/horsepower margin). What's interesting, though, is that the resultant IIC polygon can be looked at either way -- as a IIC or IC Hybrid -- in its appearance.

So if the IIC is established as fictional, then all that would be needed in a CM revision is probably just a name change (and a search of scenario info to backdate those scenarios using IIC's). So it might be a simple matter, but it doesn't rise to the top in my future wishlist of revisions.

Anyway, DEF, I don't think it's necessary now to scan any more pictures. I was just wanting a better view of stock Sherman II (early M4A1) hatches, and I have that now.

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

[Simon Fox]

Sherman IIC

cbo (Claus) is basically correct, a mate does have copies of the original RAC reports used by Peter Brown to compile his data, but I always use his website since it is much easier

It is pretty clear from those figures that almost without exception 'Fireflys' should be VC in the time frame of CM, ie June 1944 on in NW Europe, the Med theatre would be different.

Of course I agree with the point made by a few that the differences between the two performance wise are minimal and therefore of little real impact on the game.

Official RAC wartime documents on Sherman nomenclature are quite clear that officially there was no IIC variant. If such did exist it would due to field modification and numbers would be minimal at most. If pictures do exist they only demonstrate the existence of one or two such. This hardly justifies their existence in the game.

Patrick Delaforce says that the 8th Armoured Bde was issued with VCs.

Of far more significance is the unfortunate absence in the game of the Churchill types with 6pdr of which a considerable proportion were until well into 1945.

Also of interest to me is whether Sherman diesel variants were used in NW Europe. The RAC preferred diesel tanks and in the ME theatre most units had diesel Shermans at least initially. It is well known that the units which were transferred to Britain for D-day from the Med were absolutely mortified to be equipped with petrol Shermans vs the diesel they had before. In a number of areas the diesel version was considered superior, including a belief that it was less flammable (correct?). It would be hardly suprising if these units did their best to obtain diesel Shermans if they could, though I have only come across anecdotal evidence for this. Anybody care to comment?

Stuart Kangaroo

I have never heard of this either but consider it just a nomenclature for a turretless Stuart quite distinct from the T18. The British removed the turrets from many Stuarts in NW Europe, this is well recognised. It is quite feasible for such a vehicle to carry a team sized unit- it's capacity in CM, within it's hull. In many cases the turret openings were widened further by removing additional armour on the top deck to improve access. The model shown above is a T18 I beleive not a Stuart 'kangaroo'. My main concern is that these vehicles are shown with the bow MG removed in CM and I wonder that this was standard practice for such a conversion. Furthermore I suspect that an Bren AA mount may have been commonly added (though manned by the passengers).

[Formerly Babra]

Excellent points, Simon.

On the issue of Fireflies in Normandy I do have one excellent (and clear) pic of a IC Hybrid there (complete with roadsign in the picture to place the pic exactly).

I was never quite sure about IICs, and merely suggested that ICs would have been more common based solely on lend lease numbers, and I was wondering why they weren't included.

On the Kangaroo (growl), apart from one website with the cryptic note that mentions turrets were removed and seats installed, I can find no photographic evidence (or any other kind of evidence) for them at all, and I've exhausted all my readily available, though limited, resources. I had asked in another thread if anyone had Hunnicutt's Stuart book and what light it might shed, but I never got a response.

The lads at BTS aren't the sort to go making things up, so I wanted to know what info they had that was different than mine.

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

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Simon Fox]

Hey babs, you can't be looking to hard.

The British and Canadian Armies used turretless M3A3(mainly) and M5(occasionally) Stuarts as recce vehicles and prime movers for 17-pr AT guns. They seem to have a bit more armament than CM gives them however especially in the recce configuration where I have seen a .50 and a .30 plus a hull .30!

Check out this page http://www.geocities.com/spoelstra.geo/cmp/stuart_vi_recce.html

or this one http://www.armourinfocus.freeserve.co.uk/m3/m3intro.htm

a picture of one may be seen here http://www.magma.ca/~tracks/shermans.htm

and this discussion http://www.mo-money.com/AFV-news/cgi_bin/webbbs/config.pl?read=4196

Also there is vanguard book on the Stuart which a friend assures me has some pictorial evidence.

[This message has been edited by Simon Fox (edited 08-28-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

Thanks for the links, Simon. The pic links I already had (among hundreds of others). I haven't visited them in a while though.

The discussion link was especially interesting. Thanks again.

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

Sounds like 100% weapons-grade bolonium to me.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Simon, you asked, "In a number of areas the diesel version was considered superior, including a belief that it was less flammable (correct?)."

Well, from what I've read, the difference between diesel and gasoline *in general* made little or no difference, since it was usually an ignition of the ammo storage that "brewed up" a tank. It was especially vicious since it was stored in the crew compartment whereas the engine fuel was usually on the other side of a firewall. Thus, if the ammo blew before the crew had evacuated the vehicle, they usually had no hope of surviving. This is probably why the set storage of the ammo was such a step forward in the survivability of later Shermans.

That said, there may well be something I don't know about the fuel storage of the Sherman that made it particularly vulnerable and dangerous. If so, a good question is whether the problem was addressed in later models in a way similar to ammo storage. After all, the technology of self-sealing fuel tanks and automatic fire extinguishers had been around for a bit (although I will admit that designing a self-sealing fuel tank to survive a hit by a large AP round *would* present a bit of a challenge ).

Michael

[DEF BUNGIS]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

DEF,

you can send em on over to me again to me if you need hosting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks M;

But the bottom line is I don't think these PICS would prove anything that hasn't been argued.

So really, based on what I read here, there is no proof the FF IIC existed. Right?

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

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

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

[Spook]

I personally don't think it's necessary anymore, Def, other than to show added views of Fireflys that are not the VC type. (BTW, Def, I see that you're a Rush fan too. )

On the subject of "wet" ammo storage, there still could be the problem of tank brew-up if tanks were overloaded with ammo. And the Squadron reference I cited earlier further relates (in the M4A3 section) that this happened quite frequently with US tanks right on to war's end, sometimes even with higher orders to do so.

And in terms of regarding the inclusion of the Sherman IIC in the CM pool as an error, one should also check the 3D images of the earlier US tanks in CM. Whether an M4, M4A3, or M4A3(w), the hull shape is shown the same for all three types (closest to the M4A3(w) in realistic appearance). If we are really doing to be "tank grog", then isn't this as big an error, or even bigger? Shouldn't the early M4's be portrayed correctly?

My personal answer to this is, "DON'T BOTHER." Trying to give accurate portrayals of the earlier M4's would require increased polygon counts due to the front-hull hatch "pulpits", and this game isn't trying to respond to a judge's panel in a plastic modeler's convention (which I've served on at times, ).

I would still like to see US AA halftracks, though.......

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 08-28-2000).]

[DEF BUNGIS]

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

I personally don't think it's necessary anymore, Def, other than to show added views of Fireflys that are not the VC type. (BTW, Def, I see that you're a Rush fan too. )

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahhh, very good observation Spook.

I was wondering if anyone would notice the little qoute from Niel.

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

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

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

[Claus B]

I've asked around re: the picture of the alleged Firefly IIC. A better and clearer version came up and someone pointed out that if you look at the very rear of the tank, after the Churchill track, you can actually see the rear end of the hull. Square and welded. So this is definately not a cast hull Sherman.

The pic is at http://www.mapleleafup.org/vehicles/cac/images/firefly02.jpg

Claus B

[Spook]

For a moment, I couldn't see as to whether or not the back extension past the attached Churchill track was part of the hull or some rear-mounted storage bin (it's kinda dark looking). But I can discern the back hull lines ABOVE the track better in this picture.

It's pretty straight. Thus this defines the "composite" hull for the IC hybrid indeed, as you've argued.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Durruti:

Just as a point of information, the 8th Princess Louise's (New Brunswick Hussars) was a Canadian unit that served exclusively in Italy as part of 5th Canadian AD.

Did they not transfer to NW Europe as part of Operation Goldflake - with the rest of the Division - in February/March 1945?