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

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