Firefly question (2 Viewers)

[uksubs]

Sorry, I screwed up on my memory, the gentlemen I met was from the 761st, not the 745th. I posted the correct information when it happened about a year ago on a different thread, but didn't take the time to look it up when preparing to post on this thread.

I certainly agree with you that you should not rely on the statistics provided by the History or Military channel. However, the first hand accounts by the men who fought in the Sherman to me are a pretty good indicator.

You have always been an enormous fan of the Sherman, so you should have a good grasp of the statistics. What was the loss ratio of Shermans to Tigers and Shermans to Panthers in WWII? You point out the other sources of Sherman losses, but I didn't catch the head to head loss ratio? According to the Book "Deathtraps" by Belton Cooper - an ordinance officer who actually kept the loss statistics for the Spearhead Division - they lost several Shermans for every Tiger or Panther destroyed. I don't have my copy of the book with me, so I can't give exact numbers, but I am fairly certain you know what the actual loss rate was. Was it 1 Sherman for 1 Tiger or Panther, 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger of Panther? More? If its more than 3 for 1, I would say the Allied high command has some explaining to do . . .

Death traps is a great read as well "Death by design " about British armour in ww2

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Sorry, I screwed up on my memory, the gentlemen I met was from the 761st, not the 745th. I posted the correct information when it happened about a year ago on a different thread, but didn't take the time to look it up when preparing to post on this thread.

I certainly agree with you that you should not rely on the statistics provided by the History or Military channel. However, the first hand accounts by the men who fought in the Sherman to me are a pretty good indicator.

You have always been an enormous fan of the Sherman, so you should have a good grasp of the statistics. What was the loss ratio of Shermans to Tigers and Shermans to Panthers in WWII? You point out the other sources of Sherman losses, but I didn't catch the head to head loss ratio? According to the Book "Deathtraps" by Belton Cooper - an ordinance officer who actually kept the loss statistics for the Spearhead Division - they lost several Shermans for every Tiger or Panther destroyed. I don't have my copy of the book with me, so I can't give exact numbers, but I am fairly certain you know what the actual loss rate was. Was it 1 Sherman for 1 Tiger or Panther, 5 Shermans for 1 Tiger of Panther? More? If its more than 3 for 1, I would say the Allied high command has some explaining to do . . .

I have heard 3 to 1 with 4 Shermans vs a single Tiger if none of the Shermans were Fireflies - i.e. the US experience. I have seen a US strategy guide for how 4 Shermans can defeat a Tiger with the surviving Sherman getting a rear shot at the Tiger. But how often did they come across a single Tiger? The strategy didn't work if there was more than one. And anti-tank AFVs were supposed to go after the Tigers.

I don't know the ratio for Shermans against a single Panther, but the Shermans only needed to get around the side at medium range - they didn't need a rear shot.

The Canadian and British experience was better against single tigers and Panthers because of the firefly.

Terry

 

[Rob]

I agree with one thing Louis said,and thats about the opinions of people who actually served in the Sherman,I've been moved by the affection some of these guys held this Tank in, not surprising when many travelled across Europe in them fighting as they went.

Rob

 

[Rob]

I have heard 3 to 1 with 4 Shermans vs a single Tiger if none of the Shermans were Fireflies - i.e. the US experience. I have seen a US strategy guide for how 4 Shermans can defeat a Tiger with the surviving Sherman getting a rear shot at the Tiger. But how often did they come across a single Tiger? The strategy didn't work if there was more than one. And anti-tank AFVs were supposed to go after the Tigers.

I don't know the ratio for Shermans against a single Panther, but the Shermans only needed to get around the side at medium range - they didn't need a rear shot.

The Canadian and British experience was better against single tigers and Panthers because of the firefly.

Terry

I understand 3-1 with the Firefly.

Rob

 

[arnhem44mad]

Right guys before I go I would like to get this topic back on track, sorry for getting it so far off

So back to the King and Country Babe and the Figarti Stunner....

Does anyone have a British sherman and figarti, and could they take a pic of the two in a line and take a pic of the figarti sherman with king and country commander in it?

 

[Blowtorch]

Did you mean give K&C a passing grade on this one or a pass on buying it?

Terry

I would definately get it if I didn't have one already. Though I do wish they had painted it similar to the last Brit Sherman they released. Come to think of it, had they painted it that way, I probably would indeed get it as a second.

Regarding the muzzle break, what I mean is that most WW2 pics I am seeing are of front quarter views of the Firefly, and from that angle, it would be hard to distinguish the two different styles, as the K&C style would get compressed when viewed from a narrow angle.

 

[jazzeum]

Duke,

I wasn't referring to you or anyone else per se. I think we've all had the tendency from time to time to be somewhat critical of the collectors who want historically accurate models.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Terry,

The M4A4 never had the "wet stowage" ammo racks. M4A4 was dropped from production before "Wet Stowage" came into production. A number of M4A4s were built before the addition of the applique armor on the hull sides and some British vehicles didn't get the modification. .

M4A4 had the most complex engine of any of the M4s and it was dropped from production when the other versions had adequate production.

GB

Well thanks for ruining what I thought was an easy guide to identifying Shermans Was it mostly the M4A3 that had the wet storage? So the Firefly had the same fire problem - no wonder they kept it back and let the 3 regular Shermans go ahead to flush out Panzers for the 17 pdr.

Terry

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I would definately get it if I didn't have one already. Though I do wish they had painted it similar to the last Brit Sherman they released. Come to think of it, had they painted it that way, I probably would indeed get it as a second.

Regarding the muzzle break, what I mean is that most WW2 pics I am seeing are of front quarter views of the Firefly, and from that angle, it would be hard to distinguish the two different styles, as the K&C style would get compressed when viewed from a narrow angle.

I had the same thoughts about the viewing angle of the K&C version from the photos on their web site. It's been mentioned here before but no one with a K&C Firefly has followed up with a comment on it's shape after actually having seen it. But from Eazy's photos at the beginning of this thread, the muzzle brake does not look very spherical - more like a cylinder

Terry

 

[Blowtorch]

I had the same thoughts about the viewing angle of the K&C version from the photos on their web site. It's been mentioned here before but no one with a K&C Firefly has followed up with a comment on it's shape after actually having seen it. But from Eazy's photos at the beginning of this thread, the muzzle brake does not look very spherical - more like a cylinder

Terry

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/books/groundpower/gp117.htm

Reading this link, there appear to be at least two different brakes in this book

 

[Phantom Warrior]

http://www.perthmilitarymodelling.com/reviews/books/groundpower/gp117.htm

Reading this link, there appear to be at least two different brakes in this book

It does mention 2 different styles of muzzle brake, but I have only ever seen the spherical one on WW2 photos of the Firefly. If you look at photos of the field version of the 17 pdr, it does have a few different styles of muzzle brake.

The link also mentions 3 different styles of turret bustles, but I don't remember the style on the K&C version from WW2 photos either, although I have not actually looked for that.

Terry

 

[uksubs]

The K&C version is bigger slightly.
See what you think.
Both are really nice models though.

Thanks for posting the photos Easy
The more I look at the Figarti Sherman the more I like it as I love how it show of the armour casting on the hull & turret

 

[binder001]

I'll have to look up the article that refuted part of the 5:1 ratio. Loss ratios depend a lot on the tactical situation. The Germans were generally on the defense, which is why the towed AT gun was more deadly than the enemy tanks, same for mines, etc.

Here is a link to about 14 pages of internet discussion on the AFV loss rates of the US Army Twelfth Army Group (First, Third and Ninth US Armies). Lots of discussion and some good data presented.

References on the Sherman versus German tanks;
Armored Thunderbolt by STeven J. Zaloga

http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Thund...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279573834&sr=8-1

"Panther versus Sherman", Osprey Duel Series, same author

http://www.amazon.com/reader/184603292X?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pt

 

[jbonzo1]

This has turned into a really interesting thread.
It's amazing how knowledgeable some people are.
Me? I love both Fireflys but then like Rob I'm from the "Does it look cool" school of collectors.
It's great to get such great info here though.

Agreed. This thread is informative and interesting. The two do not always go hand in hand!

 

[jbonzo1]

I had the same thoughts about the viewing angle of the K&C version from the photos on their web site. It's been mentioned here before but no one with a K&C Firefly has followed up with a comment on it's shape after actually having seen it. But from Eazy's photos at the beginning of this thread, the muzzle brake does not look very spherical - more like a cylinder

Terry

Here's a photo of my Firefly from a thread I posted when it arrived. There was some agreement about the brake not looking right. I like it, though. Would I buy the Figarti too? Yes, sir!

 

[Louis Badolato]

I'll have to look up the article that refuted part of the 5:1 ratio. Loss ratios depend a lot on the tactical situation. The Germans were generally on the defense, which is why the towed AT gun was more deadly than the enemy tanks, same for mines, etc.

Here is a link to about 14 pages of internet discussion on the AFV loss rates of the US Army Twelfth Army Group (First, Third and Ninth US Armies). Lots of discussion and some good data presented.

References on the Sherman versus German tanks;
Armored Thunderbolt by STeven J. Zaloga

http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Thund...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279573834&sr=8-1

"Panther versus Sherman", Osprey Duel Series, same author

http://www.amazon.com/reader/184603292X?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pt

Gary,

I read the introduction to Steven Zaloga's Osprey book, Panther vs. Sherman (talking about the Battle of the Bulge), and he concluded that with an experienced crew, the Panther dominated, but many of the Panther crews at this late point in the war were inexperienced and inadequately trained. It would appear that all things being equal training wise, this author would agree with me that the Panther is the far superior tank.

 

[OzDigger]

Rule of thumb for the 0.50 ca. MG on a Sherman. If the tank is British or Canadian, take it off. If the tank is American, leave it mounted.

Terry

Terry, I'm pleased we have cleared that up

 

[OzDigger]

It seems strange for K&C to just make up a barral type for a well known AFV. Perhaps AC could offer his reference for the set. Bound to be one as I cannot see why he would make it up so, to speak
Mitch



When K&C first came out with their Firefly I noticed this about the muzzle brake and thought, well maybe it was just a rare version or something... but I just can't find an example. Anyway, I love K&C and their products, but this issue has kept me from buying the Firefly. I'm not necessarily a "rivet counter" or anything, but to me the long 17 pounder barrel and the round muzzle brake are what give the Firefly it's distinctive look. Twice I've almost ordered it anyway, but at the list minute decided against it. Aggh!

Similar errors often stop me buying a model. And considering all the contemporary photos etc available on these tanks (and aircraft etc) you would think it would be easier for K & C and Figarti etc to get the details right rather than wrong

 

[Blowtorch]

many of the Panther crews at this late point in the war were inexperienced and inadequately trained.

Same in the east. When the Soviets crossed the Vistula in Jan.45, they ran right into fresh (green) Panther battalions of the 16 & 17 PDs. Soviets vaporized them.

 

[OzDigger]

Keep in mind that the Sherman was a medium tank with similar performance and protection as the T-34 and aside from front armour and the high velocity gun, the latter corrected by the Firefly, similar to the Panther, but a lot more mechanically reliable. The Sherman was intended as an infantry support tank and had no business going up against Tigers, or even Panthers which from the front with their armour and high velocity gun were more like a heavy tank. That's why the Russians developed the KV and JS tanks to augment their T-34s - to take on the Tigers and Panthers. The Allies didn't do anything similar until the end of the war.

So saying tank veterins would rather be in a Tiger doesn't mean much as far as I am concerned. Anyone would rather be in a Tiger. They are obviously 2 different classes of tank.

Terry

If it came down to medium tanks, I'm sure most people with any sense would rather be in a Panther than a Sherman.