±Recent Visitors

Recent Visitors to Com-Central!

±User Info-big


Welcome Anonymous

Nickname
Password

Membership:
Latest: cgsimpson
New Today: 0
New Yesterday: 0
Overall: 6645

People Online:
Members: 0
Visitors: 623
Total: 623
Who Is Where:
 Visitors:
01: Community Forums
02: Community Forums
03: Downloads
04: Community Forums
05: News
06: Photo Gallery
07: Home
08: Community Forums
09: Member Screenshots
10: Community Forums
11: Community Forums
12: Photo Gallery
13: News
14: Photo Gallery
15: Community Forums
16: Community Forums
17: News
18: Community Forums
19: Community Forums
20: Home
21: Photo Gallery
22: Home
23: Community Forums
24: Community Forums
25: Community Forums
26: Community Forums
27: Community Forums
28: Photo Gallery
29: Photo Gallery
30: News
31: Community Forums
32: News
33: Community Forums
34: Downloads
35: Community Forums
36: Community Forums
37: Photo Gallery
38: Community Forums
39: Photo Gallery
40: Community Forums
41: Community Forums
42: Community Forums
43: Member Screenshots
44: Your Account
45: Community Forums
46: Community Forums
47: Community Forums
48: Community Forums
49: Community Forums
50: News
51: Downloads
52: News
53: Community Forums
54: Community Forums
55: CPGlang
56: Photo Gallery
57: Photo Gallery
58: Photo Gallery
59: News
60: Community Forums
61: Home
62: News
63: Your Account
64: Community Forums
65: Community Forums
66: Community Forums
67: Community Forums
68: Community Forums
69: Community Forums
70: Home
71: Community Forums
72: Community Forums
73: Community Forums
74: News
75: Community Forums
76: Home
77: Community Forums
78: News
79: Community Forums
80: Home
81: Home
82: Community Forums
83: Home
84: Photo Gallery
85: Community Forums
86: Community Forums
87: Community Forums
88: Photo Gallery
89: Community Forums
90: Community Forums
91: Downloads
92: Home
93: Community Forums
94: Photo Gallery
95: Home
96: Community Forums
97: Community Forums
98: Community Forums
99: News Archive
100: Photo Gallery
101: Home
102: Community Forums
103: Community Forums
104: News
105: Downloads
106: Community Forums
107: News
108: Home
109: Community Forums
110: Community Forums
111: Community Forums
112: CPGlang
113: Community Forums
114: Community Forums
115: Community Forums
116: Community Forums
117: Home
118: Community Forums
119: Community Forums
120: Community Forums
121: Home
122: Member Screenshots
123: Community Forums
124: Community Forums
125: Community Forums
126: Photo Gallery
127: Photo Gallery
128: Photo Gallery
129: CPGlang
130: Member Screenshots
131: Community Forums
132: Community Forums
133: Downloads
134: Photo Gallery
135: Community Forums
136: Home
137: Community Forums
138: Community Forums
139: News
140: Community Forums
141: Community Forums
142: Community Forums
143: Community Forums
144: Downloads
145: Community Forums
146: Community Forums
147: Community Forums
148: Community Forums
149: Community Forums
150: Photo Gallery
151: News
152: Community Forums
153: Community Forums
154: Photo Gallery
155: Community Forums
156: Downloads
157: Community Forums
158: Community Forums
159: Statistics
160: News Archive
161: Your Account
162: Photo Gallery
163: Photo Gallery
164: Community Forums
165: Community Forums
166: Community Forums
167: Downloads
168: Statistics
169: Community Forums
170: Community Forums
171: Community Forums
172: Community Forums
173: Downloads
174: Your Account
175: Community Forums
176: Photo Gallery
177: Statistics
178: Community Forums
179: Community Forums
180: Community Forums
181: Home
182: Home
183: Community Forums
184: Community Forums
185: Community Forums
186: Photo Gallery
187: Community Forums
188: Home
189: Community Forums
190: Community Forums
191: Community Forums
192: Community Forums
193: CPGlang
194: Community Forums
195: Photo Gallery
196: Community Forums
197: Community Forums
198: Photo Gallery
199: Community Forums
200: Community Forums
201: Home
202: Home
203: Community Forums
204: Community Forums
205: Community Forums
206: Community Forums
207: Community Forums
208: Home
209: Community Forums
210: Community Forums
211: Downloads
212: Community Forums
213: Home
214: Home
215: Community Forums
216: Community Forums
217: Photo Gallery
218: Home
219: Photo Gallery
220: Downloads
221: CPGlang
222: Community Forums
223: Community Forums
224: Community Forums
225: Downloads
226: Community Forums
227: Community Forums
228: Home
229: Community Forums
230: Community Forums
231: Downloads
232: Downloads
233: Community Forums
234: Home
235: Downloads
236: Community Forums
237: Community Forums
238: Downloads
239: Community Forums
240: Downloads
241: Home
242: Photo Gallery
243: Photo Gallery
244: Community Forums
245: Community Forums
246: Community Forums
247: Photo Gallery
248: Community Forums
249: Community Forums
250: Photo Gallery
251: Community Forums
252: Community Forums
253: Community Forums
254: Community Forums
255: Downloads
256: Community Forums
257: Home
258: Downloads
259: Photo Gallery
260: Downloads
261: Community Forums
262: Downloads
263: Downloads
264: Community Forums
265: Community Forums
266: Community Forums
267: News Archive
268: Photo Gallery
269: Downloads
270: Community Forums
271: Community Forums
272: Home
273: Photo Gallery
274: Photo Gallery
275: Community Forums
276: Home
277: Community Forums
278: Photo Gallery
279: Community Forums
280: Downloads
281: News Archive
282: Home
283: Community Forums
284: Community Forums
285: Home
286: Downloads
287: Community Forums
288: Community Forums
289: Your Account
290: Photo Gallery
291: Community Forums
292: Community Forums
293: Community Forums
294: Community Forums
295: Community Forums
296: Photo Gallery
297: Community Forums
298: Photo Gallery
299: Home
300: Photo Gallery
301: Community Forums
302: Your Account
303: Community Forums
304: Photo Gallery
305: Home
306: Community Forums
307: Community Forums
308: Photo Gallery
309: Community Forums
310: Home
311: Photo Gallery
312: Home
313: Community Forums
314: Home
315: Community Forums
316: Community Forums
317: Community Forums
318: Community Forums
319: Community Forums
320: Community Forums
321: Community Forums
322: Community Forums
323: Photo Gallery
324: Community Forums
325: Photo Gallery
326: Statistics
327: Home
328: Community Forums
329: Home
330: Home
331: Photo Gallery
332: Community Forums
333: Your Account
334: Community Forums
335: Community Forums
336: Community Forums
337: Community Forums
338: Photo Gallery
339: Home
340: Community Forums
341: Photo Gallery
342: Photo Gallery
343: Photo Gallery
344: Community Forums
345: Photo Gallery
346: Home
347: Community Forums
348: Home
349: Community Forums
350: Photo Gallery
351: Downloads
352: Community Forums
353: Community Forums
354: Community Forums
355: Community Forums
356: Photo Gallery
357: Community Forums
358: Community Forums
359: Community Forums
360: Photo Gallery
361: Community Forums
362: Community Forums
363: Community Forums
364: Community Forums
365: Community Forums
366: Home
367: Community Forums
368: Community Forums
369: Community Forums
370: Photo Gallery
371: Community Forums
372: Community Forums
373: Photo Gallery
374: Community Forums
375: Community Forums
376: Community Forums
377: Community Forums
378: Community Forums
379: Photo Gallery
380: Community Forums
381: Home
382: Home
383: Photo Gallery
384: Downloads
385: Community Forums
386: Community Forums
387: Downloads
388: Community Forums
389: Photo Gallery
390: Community Forums
391: Community Forums
392: Downloads
393: Photo Gallery
394: Community Forums
395: Community Forums
396: Home
397: Community Forums
398: Community Forums
399: Community Forums
400: Community Forums
401: Community Forums
402: Community Forums
403: Photo Gallery
404: Home
405: Downloads
406: Photo Gallery
407: Community Forums
408: Community Forums
409: News
410: Community Forums
411: Community Forums
412: Community Forums
413: Community Forums
414: News
415: Community Forums
416: Community Forums
417: Photo Gallery
418: Photo Gallery
419: Community Forums
420: Community Forums
421: News Archive
422: Downloads
423: Community Forums
424: Photo Gallery
425: Community Forums
426: Community Forums
427: Photo Gallery
428: Your Account
429: Community Forums
430: Community Forums
431: Community Forums
432: Your Account
433: Community Forums
434: Community Forums
435: Community Forums
436: Community Forums
437: Community Forums
438: Home
439: Community Forums
440: Community Forums
441: Downloads
442: Home
443: Downloads
444: Community Forums
445: Community Forums
446: Photo Gallery
447: Photo Gallery
448: Community Forums
449: Community Forums
450: Community Forums
451: Photo Gallery
452: CPGlang
453: CPGlang
454: Community Forums
455: Community Forums
456: Community Forums
457: Community Forums
458: Photo Gallery
459: Home
460: Statistics
461: CPGlang
462: News
463: Community Forums
464: Community Forums
465: Community Forums
466: Home
467: News
468: Community Forums
469: Photo Gallery
470: Community Forums
471: Downloads
472: Community Forums
473: Community Forums
474: Community Forums
475: Community Forums
476: Community Forums
477: Community Forums
478: Community Forums
479: Community Forums
480: Community Forums
481: Community Forums
482: News
483: Downloads
484: Community Forums
485: Community Forums
486: Community Forums
487: Community Forums
488: Community Forums
489: Photo Gallery
490: Home
491: Photo Gallery
492: Community Forums
493: Home
494: Community Forums
495: Home
496: Downloads
497: Community Forums
498: Community Forums
499: Photo Gallery
500: Community Forums
501: Downloads
502: Photo Gallery
503: Photo Gallery
504: Home
505: Photo Gallery
506: Community Forums
507: Community Forums
508: Home
509: Photo Gallery
510: Home
511: Downloads
512: Community Forums
513: Downloads
514: Community Forums
515: Community Forums
516: Community Forums
517: Home
518: Community Forums
519: Community Forums
520: Community Forums
521: Community Forums
522: Community Forums
523: Community Forums
524: Photo Gallery
525: Community Forums
526: Community Forums
527: Community Forums
528: Photo Gallery
529: Community Forums
530: Community Forums
531: Downloads
532: Community Forums
533: Home
534: Your Account
535: News Archive
536: Community Forums
537: Community Forums
538: Statistics
539: News Archive
540: Home
541: Community Forums
542: Home
543: Community Forums
544: Home
545: Community Forums
546: Community Forums
547: Photo Gallery
548: Community Forums
549: Home
550: Community Forums
551: Photo Gallery
552: Community Forums
553: Photo Gallery
554: Home
555: Community Forums
556: Community Forums
557: Community Forums
558: Downloads
559: Community Forums
560: Member Screenshots
561: Photo Gallery
562: Home
563: Community Forums
564: Member Screenshots
565: Photo Gallery
566: Downloads
567: Downloads
568: Photo Gallery
569: Community Forums
570: Community Forums
571: Community Forums
572: Downloads
573: Home
574: Your Account
575: Community Forums
576: Community Forums
577: Home
578: Community Forums
579: Photo Gallery
580: Home
581: Community Forums
582: Photo Gallery
583: Photo Gallery
584: Community Forums
585: CPGlang
586: Community Forums
587: Downloads
588: Community Forums
589: Home
590: Photo Gallery
591: Community Forums
592: Community Forums
593: Downloads
594: Photo Gallery
595: Downloads
596: Photo Gallery
597: Community Forums
598: Community Forums
599: Photo Gallery
600: Community Forums
601: Community Forums
602: Downloads
603: Community Forums
604: Home
605: Community Forums
606: Community Forums
607: News
608: Community Forums
609: Community Forums
610: Community Forums
611: Community Forums
612: Community Forums
613: Community Forums
614: Community Forums
615: Community Forums
616: Downloads
617: Community Forums
618: Home
619: Community Forums
620: Photo Gallery
621: Photo Gallery
622: Community Forums
623: Community Forums

Staff Online:

No staff members are online!
Sherman Firefly
The AFV ASSOCIATION was formed in 1964 to support the thoughts and research of all those interested in Armored Fighting Vehicles and related topics, such as AFV drawings. The emphasis has always been on sharing information and communicating with other members of similar interests; e.g. German armor, Japanese AFVs, or whatever.
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page     Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:14 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi folks,

well I think that the TD may not have been blocking the introduction of an more powerfull gun, officially
However I also think they where not to happy with the idea and mostlikly when asked they wouldn't have said that it would be an good option
From what I know about the US TD branch, at the beginning of WW2 they where not even keep on putting there AT gun on track's
Only after complaints of the frontline that the AT guns good not keep pace with the rest of the army, they started shift to SP versions

- bsmart
And yes I like discussions like this. We used to have them more often , maybe they will come back


Let's hope so

Some-one else has something to discuss ?
I'm open to all points concerning AFV's, except one thing: paint colors


About mixing them up
After the war the Dutch army also used the 3 different gun sizes, however I dont know how these tanks where mixed together

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss
Hi folks,

....I'm open to all points concerning AFV's, except one thing: paint colors

Michel


I think you're going to fit right in here. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
C_Sherman
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 590

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:22 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Hi,

For all of the 'old' AFV News site alumnus, we had a fairly long discussion about this on 'ye olde borde'. That discussion was mainly focused on the delays in fielding the 90mm guns, but I recall a good deal of good information regarding the differences between the 17 pdr and the 76mm.

There was some fairly well reasoned and documented arguments that involved the poor performance (nonavailability?) of the 17 pdr HE rounds. The War Department placed a good deal of importance on the availability of the HE rounds, partly because of lingering traces of doctrine emphasizing the infantry-support aspects of armor tactics. I seem to recall some knowledgeable assertions that British industry simply couldn't supply adequate numbers of the 17 pdr guns and ammunition without shorting their own forces. Apparently the 76mm gun was actually in development well before it was deemed necessary for installation in Sherman tanks, and it was relatively simple to ramp production up and supply conversion kits that would exactly match the existing chassis.

I believe that "shatter gap" played a role, somehow, in ways that I'm apparently too thick to grasp. At least I THINK that is what he was trying to say... Shocked Rolling Eyes Smile

I'm not sure if any of that was archived, but I though it was interesting that the discussion isn't really new for some of us! Welcome Wink

Chuck

_________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it
will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
-Herm Albright

Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc!
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
JWB2
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 25, 2006
Posts: 199

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 6:49 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Here is a tech paper abstract on shatter gap.
oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&...=ADA284904

If you more just Google. Smile
Back to top
View user's profile
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:45 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

C. Sherman brings up memories of the old discussions (We all looked at the elephant from slightly different angles)

I believe that some of the folks that complain about the choices made for equiping American forces in WWII minimize the effort and time required in making a change. The Northwest European campaign was actually fairly short (only 11 months from D-Day to V-E day) and equipment being used had been produced in some case 2 years before and stockpiles built up in preperation for the high consumption rates of an active campaign. At the same time the priorities of this campaign were only a few of the many competing priorities of a global war. Once the Army decided where it's priorities were for 75mm, 76mm, 90mm, etc they had to present those priorities to 'War Production Boards' that had similar information from the Navy, Air Force, Industrial Production, Allied Procurement. The allocation of 'machine shop' resources had to balance out the various needs. Shutting down a plant to convert it from 'outmoded' 3" AA guns to 76mm or 17pdr guns would probably be fought by the Navy which wanted more medium AA guns for the Pacific Fleet, Allied Procurement that would rather have production continue because the 3" was acceptable to the Chinese who were just starting to recieve shipments after the higher priority needs had been met and the Industrial Production folks who want to use the machine tools to make more machine tools so they can give you twice as many 76mm in six months once they build the machines to equip two more factories.

Then the 'doctrine' arguments come in to play. The well known ones (because it is generally accepted it was flawed) like TDs v Tanks as well as lessor thought of ones that decided that tanks would probably spend more time in infantry support than in killing other tanks (Yes I know the two are related but everything is related eventually) If you accept the need to equip the tanks to handle multiple tasks like infantry support you have to make a doctrinal decision on how to balance the roles. The U.S. Army settled on a 'jack of all trades' doctrine that set a broad doctrine that the main armament had to do an adequate job of handling H.E. type (bursting) targets as well as penetrating (Tank Killing) targets. The British leaned much further towards the main tank gun as being a penetrating weapon. In the pre and early war years it lead to two versions of each tank. One (the primary production model) had a higher velocity wepon that fired solid shot to penetrate. The other (in much lower production and deployment) was equiped with a howitzer that fired smoke and H.E. rounds. In Brazen Chariots robert Crisp laments the fact they did not have a good weapon to counter their nemesis the AT gun. Even after the British moved to the larger guns (6pdr and 75mm) they retained the diachotomy of penetrating and bursting weapons. While the American AP rounds were designed with a bursting charge in them rounds supplied to the British were not filled with the HE filler.

The U.S. recognized the need for a multipurpose weapon and early on settled on the medium velocity 75mm. At the time it had good penetration and good bursting capability. As opposing tanks got thicker skins the penetraing capability quickly went down to 'barely adequate' While a partial solution was in the pipeline with the 76mm I think they correctly saw the need for a balanced weapon that continued to provide a good bursting capability. How much evaluation went into deciding which would be used the most I don't know but I think they got the balance right. More use was actually made of the tank gun as a bursting (i.e. H.E. delivery) weapon than as a tank killing weapon. I think that if they had had the foresight to step up to a 90mm class weapon earlier we wouldn't even be having this discussion but I don't think that spending a lot of effort in adapting a foreign specialist weapon would have been the right way to go.

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I feel I have just opened up a time warp to the old pre spam bot site Laughing

It's nice to have a discussion like this happening again. I learn quite a bit from these.

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Let's start up the fire an little higher Twisted Evil

After the US invasion of Northern Africa, operation Torch 1942-11, it was already clear that the Sherman lacked behind in fire power
However in 1944-06 there was little to no change in this

In the meantime:
- The German army switched from the 75mm on the Pz IV to the even more deadly 75mm on the Pz 5
- The Russian army had changed from the T34/76 to the T34/85
- The British army had changed from Crusaders to Churchill. I know they classified their tanks different, however they tried to do something

So why was it clear to al nations to upgrade their weapons to an more powerful type of weapon
And the US did not, untill the last month of the war??

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss


So why was it clear to al nations to upgrade their weapons to an more powerful type of weapon
And the US did not, untill the last month of the war??

Michel


The short answer is logistics (and inertia in the system). The domestic war machine production lines were humming along nicely, the outcome of the conflict was not really in question, and there were constraints to what could be changed in a period of time that would affect the outcome when what was already being done was working (looking at the overall). New guns, bigger tanks (M26) all incur delays and other complications (production, shipping, support) when the numbers were working for the allies with what they had.

Fair to the crews? Probably not.
Effective in the end result? Outcome speaks for itself.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Michel_Krauss
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Oct 30, 2009
Posts: 953
Location: Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Doug_Kibbey
The short answer is logistics (and inertia in the system). The domestic war machine production lines were humming along nicely, the outcome of the conflict was not really in question, and there were constraints to what could be changed in a period of time that would affect the outcome when what was already being done was working (looking at the overall). New guns, bigger tanks (M26) all incur delays and other complications (production, shipping, support) when the numbers were working for the allies with what they had


That's an interresting point of view, logistic's
However development on the Sherman follow-up, being the M26, already started beginning 1942
And this development was dropped, later on in 1942, to an absolute minimum effort because command decided that the Sheman was still adéquat
At that periode of time the outcome of the war was not decided
An positive outcome became possible in 1943

Command already knew in 1942 that the Sherman was no match for the Tiger 1 or the long barreled 75mm Pz IV
They had that experienced in Africa and the other allies (being UK and Russia) told them that Germany was developing new weapons

The logistic point of shipping is also interresting
Why was it possible to ship complete steam locomtives, however not an heavier tank?

Michel

_________________
I'm Not Crazy, I'm Just Not You
Back to top
View user's profile
Doug_Kibbey
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 4678
Location: The Great Satan
PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

- Michel_Krauss


That's an interresting point of view, logistic's
However development on the Sherman follow-up, being the M26, already started beginning 1942
And this development was dropped, later on in 1942, to an absolute minimum effort because command decided that the Sheman was still adéquat
At that periode of time the outcome of the war was not decided
An positive outcome became possible in 1943

Command already knew in 1942 that the Sherman was no match for the Tiger 1 or the long barreled 75mm Pz IV
They had that experienced in Africa and the other allies (being UK and Russia) told them that Germany was developing new weapons

The logistic point of shipping is also interresting
Why was it possible to ship complete steam locomtives, however not an heavier tank?

Michel


1. Development is not production, it takes quite a while to convert prototype models and adapt existing lines to mass production....and assumes the product is even ready. The M26 wasn't and there were a number of unsatisfactory reports coming out of the evaluations board that revealed deficiencies that needed correction. Short version, as presented in the '42-'43 timeframe, the vehicle was unacceptable.

2. Logistics is more than altering load plans on transport ships. It's having a pool of replacement parts, trained crews, adequate supplies of ammo, and infrastructure to support transport on the other side of the pond. Engineers, for example, objected mightily to the weight and width of the M26 as it exceeded the capacity of the bridging that was correctly foreseen as necessary for European operations. Parking places on Liberty Ships are perhaps not the least of the problems, but they certainly don't end there.

Could things have been done better or more expediently? Sure.
Was the solution set adequate to the task at hand? Apparently so.
Back to top
View user's profile Visit poster's website Photo Gallery
Kurt_Laughlin
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 577

PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Although the US Army had known of the Tiger and Panther in 1942-1943, they were rarely encountered and presumed to be heavy tanks, not the main weapons of the panzer divisions. While a difficult foe, it was thought that the Germans would continue to field the Pz IV as their main weapon. This was the tank we expected to fight. (And I'm not certain that the Pz IV *wasn't* the tank most commonly seen in the ETO after all.) The realization that there was something bigger out there *that we would have to fight regularly* didn't come until June/July 1944.

KL
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
bsmart
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 23, 2006
Posts: 2523
Location: Central Maryland
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I'll chime in here

1) "After the US invasion of Northern Africa, operation Torch 1942-11, it was already clear that the Sherman lacked behind in fire power
However in 1944-06 there was little to no change in this"

In Nov 42 The Sherman was 'state of the art' In fact deliveries were in short supply because of the ones that were rushed to 8th Army in Egypt ( A long trip all the way around Africa) The first shipment was sunk and had to be replaced at the last minute. The Convoy left the east coast US at the end of July and arrived in Egypt Sept 2.
www.usmm.org/seatraintexas.html

(This was one of two very special ships that was designed to haul heavy rail equipment and perfect for hauling tanks. 70 ton crains and high clearance heavy duty decks)

With all this being sent to the British the Americans in TORCH had to keep their M3 Lees. Somewhere else said that in '42 they should have known that the Sherman was inferior to the Tiger. I think the Tiger didn't debut until Mid 43 (about the same time as the Panther) So until they came out in Mid 43 (not 42) There was no direct proof that the Sherman was outclassed.. Yes it could be expected and work was being done on larger tanks but there was no direct evidence.

So IF at the immediate appearance of the Tiger in North Africa (May 43?) a rush effort was started to modify a Sherman with a larger gun there would be a year to develop, test, build train and deploy the new version to have it ready for D-Day. This MAY have been possible if everyone would have agreed it was neccesary but with the end user not seeing it as a major emergency it didn't get the priority it would have needed. As it was the 76mm version went into production in Feb '44 and was starting to appear in units at D-Day. That was a pretty good job

_________________
Bob Smart (bsmart@xecu.net)
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:31 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

I usually don't get into these type discussions since my Sherman knowledge is lacking.

However, I do think that there is one 'exception'. Case in point is the M4A3E2. The earliest 'mention' to the idea is Feb 44, limited production in May/June/July 44, Shipment beginning in Sept 44, and in the hands of the Troops beginning in Sept 44. Now thats fast, even by todays standards......

BUT doesn't really prove anything except there is always one exception to any case......

I'll shut up & try to learn somemore from this kniowledgable panel. A very deep discussion that is an excellent read.

Thanks
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Joe_D
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Posts: 2066
Location: Razorback Country
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:48 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

But Don,

It actually proves the opposite,

Specialty vehicle made specifically for ETO and then dropped like a hot potato when the war ended. The one advantage was she did use the 75mm and later 76mm gun so ammo wouldn't be an issue like the 17pdr.

I'll shut up & try to learn somemore from this kniowledgable panel


I feel the same way on this one but I don't use the "Bugs Bunny" vernacular
kniowledgable
Laughing

Eagerly awaiting more on this subject

_________________
Joe_D
Back to top
View user's profile Photo Gallery
Dontos
Power User

Offline Offline
Joined: Jan 24, 2006
Posts: 3436
Location: Vine Grove, KY
PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:17 am
Post subject: Re: Sherman Firefly

Joe

Actually I was sorta leaning to the 'concept to combat' in general. I don't know of any other Armored Vehicle that bridged that gap so quickly,....EVER!

But since the M4A3E2 was only a modified M4A3, able to use onhand items or supplies there really wasn't any changes to the 'LOG trail'. Although it did present some transportation issues.

Of course with the whole Sherman issue (or more properly Medium tank...), I see it as a 'good enough' solution and became more of a Mass production issue of 'Quantity over Quality'. (Not implying that it wasn't a well built machine, but definitely not the 'Wunder Waffe' that the German Heavy Tanks was termed)

Just my 2 cents
Regards
Don
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger Photo Gallery
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    Reply to topic    Printer Friendly Page    Forum Index ›  AFV News Discussion Board
Page 2 of 5
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Jump to:  


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum