Fireflys

[Phorncastle]

I rather like the old Fireflys but was wondering how effective they were in real life. I suppose my curisoity is really broader in how realistic is CMBO to real life.

Are the tactics and favouring of certain units also reflected in reports on WWII. For example I always hear about the dreaded "tiger" in the eyes of the Allied tank crews, but I prefer the Panther. Was this the case in a German tank commanders eyes? Or is the Panther seem more effective due to the limitations of the CMBO model?

I understand that obviously units didnt have free choice in what they were equipped with like we do, the German platoons couldnt say hhmm close quarter fighting today lets all take MP44s with us. But is the modelling of units so accurate that it also reflects in WWII strategy? For instance were more Panthers made than Tigers as they could take out Armour more effectively?

Back to the old Firefly, the guns excellent but with such poor armour what did the Brits and Canadians use? Did they produce loads of Fireflys to take out the german heavy armour, or did they stick with the doctrine of tanks as Inf support. In my games I certainly like to take a firefly as its the best guarantee of taking those, but were they that common?

Anyone else think much of the Firefly?

Laters

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Phorncastle:

I rather like the old Fireflys but was wondering how effective they were in real life. I suppose my curisoity is really broader in how realistic is CMBO to real life.

Are the tactics and favouring of certain units also reflected in reports on WWII. For example I always hear about the dreaded "tiger" in the eyes of the Allied tank crews, but I prefer the Panther. Was this the case in a German tank commanders eyes? Or is the Panther seem more effective due to the limitations of the CMBO model?

I understand that obviously units didnt have free choice in what they were equipped with like we do, the German platoons couldnt say hhmm close quarter fighting today lets all take MP44s with us. But is the modelling of units so accurate that it also reflects in WWII strategy? For instance were more Panthers made than Tigers as they could take out Armour more effectively?

To get the gripe on all the first-hand acounts, there is one important thing to understand about tank "preferences". What people regard as important in a tank varies greatly with their position.

The Sergant and the enlisted men in the platoon's normal tanks want thick armor first, then speed, then a good gun.

The Captain of the company wants gun, then armor, then speed.

The Colonel wants speed, then gun, then armor.

So even if the guys could select their tools, you don't get universal preferences.

Back to the old Firefly, the guns excellent but with such poor armour what did the Brits and Canadians use? Did they produce loads of Fireflys to take out the german heavy armour, or did they stick with the doctrine of tanks as Inf support. In my games I certainly like to take a firefly as its the best guarantee of taking those, but were they that common?

They had or tried to get one firefly per platoon. This is certainly much better than the Americans relying exclusivly on tank destroyers prior to Normandy, and then tank destroyers with inadequate gun either. The British and Commonwealth realized that one dangerous tank per platoon is a very good thing even if the unit is not supposed to fight tanks. At least the single Fireflys draws fire while the other tanks flank

Neither Americans nor British relied on a doctrine of tanks supporting infantry at that point in time. The Americans never did and the British had the majority of their armor in units for "modern" tank use. The British overall employment of tools was different, not as simple as the Americans, but with different tank roles, flamethrowers etc.

Anyone else think much of the Firefly?

I kinda like them, but they have bad going in mud, snow and scattered trees like all basic-suspension Shermans, and they are expensive. Sometimes I prefer the Achilles when it's available. It also depends on the month, months without HE for the 17pdr change purchase preferences, it doesn't really make sense to get the full tank to have an anti-infantry vehicle after TDing if it doesn't have HE shells.