Firefly Use in British and Canadian Troops

[Simon Fox]

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

To Simon Fox - I am well aware of the TOE. But only 6 out of 16 British armor formations available before the invasion had 36 Fireflies apiece. 4 others had 22-29 (e.g. Canadian 2nd AB, Polish AD, 8th British AB) and 6 others had none (some were "tank" rather than "armor" units, with Churchills, yada yada). Overall, they had 318 Fireflies on hand, compared to 1914 75mm Shermans and 375 75mm Cromwells. (Not counting hundreds each of Churchills and Stuarts). Which is 1 in 8.2, not 1 in 4. The armor brigades that were at doctrinal TOE also had not 108 75mm Shermans (from just 3 per FF), but 157 75mm apiece.

Knowing TOEs is not the same as knowing force strengths. It can inform ones judgement about how they operated, because it tells you what they shot for. It is not a substitute for knowing what was really on hand. If the 8th Armor Brigade had 22 Sherman Fireflies and 171 75mm Shermans, then they didn't use a uniform 1 to 3 mix of the first with the second, no matter how many times you scan the TOE.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps before you get your back up you should pay attention to what I wrote. The smallest tactical tank unit for the British was the troop. Which consisted of 1 firefly and 3 regular shermans (or cromwells). There are 36 troops in an armoured brigade, there are 36 fireflys in the unit establishment (TO&E in your parlance) for the brigade. Unless I am mistaken that makes 1 per troop. Now since I know where you cherry picked your data from I of course checked it. What's that at the bottom of the column there? It says Total (fireflys)=316 and unit establishment (what they should have)=312. Gee, I wonder why that is? Also note that there are an additional 42 in reserve or replacement stocks.

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/8418/21agt-1.htm

When the question arises as to what ratio of fireflys to shermans one could reasonably expect to meet in a British Sherman or Cromwell equipped unit in June 1944 then the answer is 1 in 4 not the spuriously derived 1 in 8.2. For your information certain units wern't supposed to have fireflys for various reasons. Factor that into your calculations did you? Obviously not.

Obviously scanning the TO&E of the 8th armoured brigade doesn't tell you that for the invasion the 4th/7th Dragoons and the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry were equipped with DD Shermans and that 22 fireflys is actually over the unit establishment. Geddit?

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I find it interesting how many American posters either refuse or unable to use the correct nomenclature for British or Commonwealth units.

Note for Slapdragon - its merely an observation, not a criticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, they did win the war you know. Just ask Creepy Crawley. They enjoyed a 5.324% advantage in materiel over their enemies, and a .0119% advantage in morale, where x=number of combat days per man per platoon squared and y=the average price of a Piccadilly whore, divided by the cosine of the hooker-to-john ratio on even numbered Saturdays.

Canadians did come a close second, of course. Americans had a 93% chance of penetration in such cases comparied to 76% for Canadians and only 52% for underpaid Brits.

If JasonC can't get the numbers right on something relatively straightforward as the number of Fireflies in an armoured division, you gotta wonder how off the wall his data is regarding Tiger tank first-shot probability, right?

[JasonC]

"certain units weren't supposed to have fireflys"

Right. About half of them. (Thus the 8.2, which you can "derive" yourself by adding up 75mm tanks and dividing by 17 lber tanks).

So using 1 FF to 3 75s in every fight in Normandy (in CM) would be cherry picking the formations represented to reflect only the half that had FFs.

"But all the ones that were -supposed- to have FFs had them". And the half that weren't supposed to have them, weren't supposed to have them because they didn't have enough to let everybody "suppose".

Look at the later war, and that is clear enough. When they had enough FFs (or Comets, or US 76mm in the case of the Poles), lo, everyone is "supposed" to have FFs all the sudden.

If anyone is trying to use a realistic mix of guns for Normandy (not just in one fight, overall) then pretending 25% of their tanks had 17 lbers is inflating what they really had by then, but about a factor of 2.

For the later war, that is fine. In Normandy, there were all 75 formations, and some with 17-bers but not enough for 1 out of 4. Only the best equipped formations had 1/4 17-lbers.

Why is this controversial, anyway?

[Simon Fox]

It's not. Just pointing out you're wrong, which you still are.

[Slapdragon]

I like the use of stats in history where it is appropriate, and where the number support their use, but in this case I need to point out that nearly every qualitative reference I refer to, primary, secondary, or otherwise, states in pretty bold terms that each troop (or platoon just to piss Ogadai off) of British 75mm armed Shermans was stiffened by a single 17pdr Firefly as of June of 1944, raising to 2x 17pdr armed tanks by 1945. If you are buying a commonwealth tank force, 25% of your Shermans should have a 17pdr on board (not counting 105mm armed tanks).

[Andreas]

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

[QBWhy is this controversial, anyway?[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not, except for you. Your numbers are not worth anything unless you look at the TO&E of the Commonwealth tank squadron.

Every source I have goes with the 1 in 4. We are not talking Churchills and Cromwells here, but only Shermans. Unless you look at 7th Armoured, you will not find Cromwell/Firefly mixes. The Recce Rgts did not have Fireflies at first, AFAIK. The Tank Rgts never had Fireflies and never acquired them.

Your numbers are meaningless, and you are wrong. You have to substract the tanks in Squadron, Battalion, and Brigade/Division HQ. You can not count Cromwells (except for those in the Armoured Brigade of 7th Armoured). You can not count Churchills.

[JasonC]

The Churchill tank brigades obviously don't have 1 out of 4 Fireflies, and I'm not talking about them.

Then other tank brigades (as opposed to armor brigades), which have Shermans, don't. The Recce regiments don't. Including the Canadians, who used 75mm Shermans not Cromwells. The 30th Armor Brigade, with the flail tanks, don't. The 25% of the tanks in standard formations attached above the platoon level, don't have FFs with them in 1 to 4 numbers. Then the 8th and 27th British armor brigades, the Poles, and the 2nd Canadian armor brigade, have some FFs but not the full 36 TOE - most of those are around 2/3rds.

Or if you count from the other end, there are 15 battalion sized armor forces that have the FF+3x75 Sherman mix, and 3 with the same but Cromwells, in the 7th, making 18 at the doctrinal TOE. There are 22 other armor battalion sized formations, ignoring the Churchills, that are not at 1xFF+3x75. Half of them with around 2/3rds of the TOE level of FFs, half of them with none.

But obviously, if I just understood British doctrine, I'd realize that half of the British tank force doesn't count, because it is painted the wrong color or called the wrong name, and actually everything that truly counts is at the 1 out of 4 mix, and anything that isn't ex cathedra cannot possibly count. Amen.

Which is fine by me, as long as you acknowledge that anyone uniformly taking 1 out of 4 FFs for the Brits in Normandy, and never pure 75s or underrepresented FFs, is cherry picking the formations he is playing, and ignoring the less upgunned ones. A luxury some British tankers did not possess in the actual fight.

Otherwise put, sometimes the Brits had plain 75mm Cromwells (plus 2x95mm Cromwell per company) and yet faced Panthers or what have you. Sometimes they had uniform 75mm Shermans. Sometimes they had 75mm Churchills (and a few 95mm). The British armor force did not consist of 1/4 FFs and 3/4 Sherman 75s. Some units did, at the platoon level. Some units did not.

[Slapdragon]

But that is not the point Jason. In CM, I am playing the British. If I want to form a historical force mix for June 1944 of Shermans I will get a troop of 3x 75mm and 1x 17pdr.

Adhoc forces of course would be much different, but the 1 in 4 is the ratio of Shermans to Fireflies at that time period. You woudl expect to see 25% of all Shermans being fireflies, and indeed that is what all historical records show us.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

But obviously, if I just understood British doctrine, I'd realize that half of the British tank force doesn't count, because it is painted the wrong color or called the wrong name, and actually everything that truly counts is at the 1 out of 4 mix, and anything that isn't ex cathedra cannot possibly count. Amen.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess that's as close as we get to you admitting you don't know everything there is to know about everything.

Ask yourself how often the headquarters troop of a squadron, or the HQ squadron of a regiment, supported an infantry company attack - this is what CM portrays, not the armour battle.

Then ask yourself where Fireflies fit into that.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Jason, the original poster asked the following question:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When playing CM, do players adher to historical proportions of Fireflies per troop, such as one Firefly for every three 75mm Sherman up to a certain date, and then two Fireflies per troop (with two 75mm Shermans) between certain dates as Fireflies become more common (or 75mm Shermans become cannon fodder).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emphasis added.

Obviously he was asking about Sherman 75 equipped troops, not squadrons or battalions (irrelevant formations at the CM level). Nor was he asking about any other type of armored formation. You are confusing the issue by answering a question nobody asked and passing it off as an answer to the question that was asked.

People who use the 1-17/3-75 mix in their CM games are not cherry picking by any stretch of the term.

[ 10-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Simon Fox]

Yeah, what is the title of the thread: "Firefly Use in British and Canadian Troops" not Regimental HQ, Sqn HQ, REME workshops or anyfink else.

As for this ridiculous 22 "battalions" (incorrect terminology as usual) they are Sherman DDs, Crabs, other 79th div funnies, CDLs none of which are found in CMBO and units which were not even in Normandy in June (ie Poles). The only credible point is the armoured division recce regiment. The rest is a load of bollocks. When some gamey bastidge uses a Firefly in a Sherman Crab troop then Jason can cry foul.

[Andreas]

Jason, the Canadian armoured Recce Rgt (SAR) did have the Firefly. Don't know why you think they did not. They (like the Poles) arrived in August, so unless you play the German invasion of Carshalton Beeches in July 1944, it is pointless to even talk about them. It is of course possible you know something their historian did not know, and the vets he quotes lied, and the pictures were all made up. In which case this will form a 'significant contribution to knowledge' and should get you a PhD.

Really, what's your point Jason? Can you also please stop talking of '75mm' and start talking about the specifics? In the Commonwealth TO&E I see no 75mm equipped unit. Just accept that this is obviously not your area of specialty, and stop pronouncing on it. It is embarassing.

From June 1944, if you play the Commonwealth and a Sherman Squadron, and if you buy a full troop, you buy a 1 in 4 mix and you play realistically. If you design a scenario with 7th Armoured (happy Brian?) you give them 3 Cromwells and 1 Firefly. If you buy Churchills, you don't buy Fireflies, but you can buy SP AT Guns (M-10/Achilles) because these were used to back the Churchills up.

You have no point to your posts as it is. Just ripping numbers from the website you looked at (valuable as it is) will not give you any indication of realistic use of the Firefly.

End of story.

[Andreas]

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

I find it interesting how many American posters either refuse or unable to use the correct nomenclature for British or Commonwealth units.

Note for Slapdragon - its merely an observation, not a criticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What would that be, BTW?

[Ogadai]

Merely an observation. I can imagine someone would make the same observation if a gang of people started using British or German terminology to describe the US Army.

[Andreas]

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

Merely an observation. I can imagine someone would make the same observation if a gang of people started using British or German terminology to describe the US Army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Err well. You know that is not particularly helpful, particularly since UK nomenclature is something you best wring your hands about anyway.

[Slapdragon]

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

Merely an observation. I can imagine someone would make the same observation if a gang of people started using British or German terminology to describe the US Army.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The old timers on the board are pretty flexible about using terminology from every country, and they do it pretty interchangeably. For example Germanboy never has problems understanding someone when they say a German troop, or a German platoon -- which happens quite often. Technically this is of course in correct. Likewise a few people from European countries whose English is not perfect commonly use German or French terms when they write. Most people either know what the comment is, or they say, "Hey, Pawbroon, what the hell is a peleton?" or whatever.

So when I say task force to Germanboy, he knows I mean to say Kamfegruppe and forgives me.

[Andreas]

Actually Slappy, I have this little 'Black book of horrific slights done to me', and I make a note of someone not writing Kampfgruppe when they ought to each time. I also use this to differentiate between serious and not-up-to-snuff posters. Hah!

[Slapdragon]

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

Actually Slappy, I have this little 'Black book of horrific slights done to me', and I make a note of someone not writing Kampfgruppe when they ought to each time. I also use this to differentiate between serious and not-up-to-snuff posters. Hah!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you are a pillock and a poltroon, which is British I believe, you German Loving hippy bastage. Put some more bear grease in the black hair of yours and you may get a girl someday.

[Slapdragon]

Just to add that I still think Andreas is a pillock.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Just to add that I still think Andreas is a pillock.<hr></blockquote>

Well you could at least edit your post like the Kiwi redleg does, to amuse me. You are a Pikey anyway.

So, I see JasonC has moved on to claim that being on the retreat does not affect loss numbers for AFVs, and that Nancy cost the Germans 300 AFVs. Very interesting, must be the same science he used here.

[Terence]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ogadai:

I find it interesting how many American posters either refuse or unable to use the correct nomenclature for British or Commonwealth units.

<hr></blockquote>

1) I don't use them cause I don't really know all the CW nomenclature, and I don't want to mis-communicate my point. Most people know what I mean when I say platoon and company anyway.

2) Troops are for Boy Scouts anyway.

3) So what, who cares, big deal.

[Pzman]

Ok from what I have read, (at least in November 1944) a Canadian Troop (Platoon) had (at least the South Alberta Regiment) three M4A4 (Sherman V) and one M4A4C(Firefly). It was on paper at least. IIRC in January 1945 they changed to Two M4A4s and two M4A4Cs.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Panzerman:

Ok from what I have read, (at least in November 1944) a Canadian Troop (Platoon) had (at least the South Alberta Regiment) three M4A4 (Sherman V) and one M4A4C(Firefly). It was on paper at least. IIRC in January 1945 they changed to Two M4A4s and two M4A4Cs.<hr></blockquote>

Good investment you made on that one. Always good to see someone buying good books, keeps their writers in business.

Terence - the reason I have problems with that statement is because the Commonwealth (at least the UK) used both Battalion and Regiment when talking about a, well, battalion-size armoured unit.

E.g. 9th BN RTR, and also I believe 2nd BN Northants Yeo, 4th Tank BN Scots Guards.

I always thought that the Troop-Squadron relationship was exactly the opposite in the US Cavalry as it was in the UK Cavalry?

[Michael Dorosh]

I am Canadian and use the terms "squad" and "section" interchangably (schizophrenically?), as well as other terms. It's a non starter.

Did JasonC ever come back and admit his numbers were off on this one? I didn't even want to get started in the AFV losses thread; I'll leave that to the true armour grogs.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I am Canadian and use the terms "squad" and "section" interchangably (schizophrenically?), as well as other terms. It's a non starter.<hr></blockquote>

Yeah, but what does that prove, since you are Canuckian, and also believe that the Beaver is indeed a true and noble animal...