British Sherman firefly

[von Lucke]

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

Why didn't they build a turretless vehicle, with the 17 pdr, the thick Churchill hull and a fate plate (as opposed to the thin Archer)?<hr></blockquote>

What, like this:

Actually, it's mounting a 3in AA gun --- at the time this experiment was comissioned (1941), all the 17lbrs were ear-marked for the Challenger project.

Oh, and here's a pic of the "Black Prince", just for the hell of it:

[Redwolf]

On the "errors" on guns:

In my opinion, the 75mm was quite fine for the intended role. This role included avoiding clashes with other tanks. As people said, the actual role asked for the high HE capability that only a lower-velocity gun can delivers, but on top of that it allows you to carry more shells in the tank (and to produce more of the cheaper shells).

The real mistake of the US, was, in my opinion, the 76mm, which was not suitable for the intended role, as a tank destroyer's gun in the presense of Tigers and Panthers, and then adding insult to injury by producing substandard projectiles for the gun.

Could anyone explain why the 17pdr could be mounted in a turret for the Sherman's ring, but neither into the Cromwell nor Churchill? What were the actual ring diameters?

[Redwolf]

Hey, guys,

I'm bumping here because I am hoping for some insight from our Commonwealth experts on the question why the British did not pursue building a useful TD after the Archer.

[Slapdragon]

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

Hey, guys,

I'm bumping here because I am hoping for some insight from our Commonwealth experts on the question why the British did not pursue building a useful TD after the Archer.<hr></blockquote>

They did, there was an open topped Challenger, but it did not make it into the war, and was only used for a few years.

[Brian]

My apologies for not getting to this sooner, Mattias.

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

Interesting, a situation similar to the one facing the Germans when they tried to fit their AT guns into their tanks. However unless I'm reading his book wrong it means we will have to pin another error on Peter Chamberlain (In this case in "British and American tanks of world war two).

He writes (in the 2000 edition):

"Vickers-Armstrong developed a new "compact" version of the 17pdr with a shorter barrel, shorter breech and lighter weight. Known originally as the Vickers HV 75mm (HV : High Velocity), but later called it the 77mm gun, it had a performance and penetrating power only slightly inferior to the 17pdr and fired the same ammunition."

I always assume the term "ammunition" is used with regards to the whole shell and casing package, and that in this case the same ammunition could be used in both guns.

Just for future reference Brian, are you sure your source is correct? It certainly sound like he has looked into it but I'd just like to know

M.<hr></blockquote>

What you've quoted is exactly the same as I have in my 1975 edition. I usually take Chamberlain and Ellis' work with some grain of salt, Mattias. Afterall, they were the ones who published, in reference to the Covenanter Bridgelayer:

"Mainly used for training and development work...A few of these vehices were used by the Australians in Burma in 1942."[p.36]

The only problem is, there were no Australian troops fighting in Burma in 1942 or any other time! The only Covenanter bridgelayer the Australian Army recieved during the war is still sitting in the Armour Musuem at Pukapunyle. Just as the British found with the vehicle, its cooling system was complete inadequate, only more so, in Australia's warmer climate, so it never left here and it was never used on operations.

My source, on the otherhand, David Fletcher, is the Head Librarian at the Royal Tank Musuem, Bovington. He's written extensively on British armoured developments and has published some excellent books on the topic. I'll think you'll find what he says is a great deal more accurate than what Messrs Chamberlain and Ellis have to say, on the topic.

The chambers of the 77mm and the 17 Pdr were very different shapes so they could not fire the same round, they could however fire the same projectile. QED.

This doesn't mean that Chamberlain and Ellis are wrong on everything, just those two items.