Firefly question (1 Viewer)

[jazzeum]

Sherman did have a nickname: Ronson, because they caught fire quickly.

Perhaps the vets called it what they did because of the likes of what they were facing.

 

[Rob]

The Shermans were notorious for catching fire, especially if hit in the side of the hull where the ammo was stored in "dry storage" compartments. That is why many M4 and other early variations had one or two externally welded patches of armour plate welded to each side of the hull for added protection. even so, they had something like an 70% chance of catching fire if hit. The vaunted Panther had the same problem if hit in the side.

The M4A4 version does not have extra armour plates welded to the sides as it used a "wet storage" ammo system which reduced the chance of a fire to below 20% if hit.

The Figarti appears to have the low bustle turret appropriate for earlier tanks, not the Firefly while the K&C Firefly appears to have the correct high bustle turret (a vertically larger turret)

Terry

The myth that German Tanks were indestructible has also added to the Sherman getting a worse name than it deserved, as you say the Panther could burn as fast as any Sherman if hit in the side armour , and German doctrine suggested flank protection for Panthers because of this.

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

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

 

[Rob]

I think it looks good without it myself

Rob

 

[Louis Badolato]

The myth that German Tanks were indestructible has also added to the Sherman getting a worse name than it deserved, as you say the Panther could burn as fast as any Sherman if hit in the side armour , and German doctrine suggested flank protection for Panthers because of this.

Rob

Rob,

I have spoken with several US Tank crew from WWII in person (including an African American tanker from the 745th), and each and every one of them told me that the Sherman was crap, or worse than crap, a deathtrap. I have heard interviews with British Tank commanders (one of whom, with a terible burn-scarred face, lost his entire crew to a Tiger at Villers Bocage and only survived because he was blown out of the top of the turret with the 88mm shell hit) who also said that Shermans were death traps, and that while the Firefly gave them at least a slight chance of survival when they encountered the Tiger, it was still a "Ronson" which brewed up if it were hit even from the front where the armor was thickest.

It would take an average of 8-10 Shermans destroyed for each Tiger destroyed. That is 32-40 good young men dying (usually burning to death) to take out each Tiger crew. The Allies chose to mass produce a medium tank in quantity, knowing that they could win with quantity rather than quality, at the expense of a lot of lives.

On one of the Military Channel shows on the subject, the interviewer asked 6 different British WWII tankers if they would chose a Firefly or a Tiger to go into battle. All 6 immediately answered "a Tiger". With all due respect to all of the Sherman experts on this forum (I am not an expert, but I include myself in the following statement) as none of us have heard a shot fired in anger while operating a Sherman, I will defer to the men who fought in them, and who universally condemn the Sherman as an underarmored, undergunned, fire hazard.

 

[Cyber Field Marshall]

Great thread about a legendary tank whatever your view. I'm glad a variety of companies have modelled one for us collectors. In terms of the tanks history and which one is more accurate in size, detail, colour etc this forum is awesome for that info. I currently have the Figarti version and think it is a splendid piece. It does unfortunately "stick out" from my other K&C armour and therefore I have considered swapping it out for the K&C version. Then again Figarti is coming out with more British armour and vehicles. But then I like the look of K&C, especially the colours because they are brighter (despite being inaccurate) and the figures look better. Oh what's a poor collector to do?

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Rob,

I have spoken with several US Tank crew from WWII in person (including an African American tanker from the 745th), and each and every one of them told me that the Sherman was crap, or worse than crap, a deathtrap. I have heard interviews with British Tank commanders (one of whom, with a terible burn-scarred face, lost his entire crew to a Tiger at Villers Bocage and only survived because he was blown out of the top of the turret with the 88mm shell hit) who also said that Shermans were death traps, and that while the Firefly gave them at least a slight chance of survival when they encountered the Tiger, it was still a "Ronson" which brewed up if it were hit even from the front where the armor was thickest.

It would take an average of 8-10 Shermans destroyed for each Tiger destroyed. That is 32-40 good young men dying (usually burning to death) to take out each Tiger crew. The Allies chose to mass produce a medium tank in quantity, knowing that they could win with quantity rather than quality, at the expense of a lot of lives.

On one of the Military Channel shows on the subject, the interviewer asked 6 different British WWII tankers if they would chose a Firefly or a Tiger to go into battle. All 6 immediately answered "a Tiger". With all due respect to all of the Sherman experts on this forum (I am not an expert, but I include myself in the following statement) as none of us have heard a shot fired in anger while operating a Sherman, I will defer to the men who fought in them, and who universally condemn the Sherman as an underarmored, undergunned, fire hazard.

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

 

[Blowtorch]

I've spoken to several WW2 veterans, both American and British and they have all said that the Sherman and Sherman Firefly tank were absolutely CRAP tanks

Crap is a rather strong word considering it did so well in Korea & the IDF. The IDF tanker vets were not thrilled about losing them.

 

[uksubs]

Well with the greatest respect Louis we have not both spoken to dozens of the same crewmen,the Brits and American crews have differing opinions, so 'universally' is not the correct term. I have never heard the term ' crap' used in relation to the Sherman by a British Sherman crewman, I think most of you are perhaps comparing it to the Tiger all the time, no Tank compared to that. The interview you quote I use in my stop at the Sherman during the tour. I'm guessing Joe Ekin didn't think his Firefly crap when he disposed of Mr Wittman in one, also because it wasn't as good as the Tiger or Panther does not mean it didn't fare better against other tanks.

I also think that when the Firefly arrived it was a three to one ratio,or at least three could take out the Tiger.

Rob

The problem must people make when they talk about German armour is that the Tiger was the German main tank used in WW2 & it was not it was the Panzer 4 witch was used most & that what the Sherman fought most in Normandy + the 88mm guns
Most British tankers thought that all the tank we made in WW2 were crap up till we got the Comet

 

[Blowtorch]

Was that scale for a 19' 4" Sherman M4 or a 20' M4A4?

Hi, I checked several measurements on the model vs. the measurements on Bradford's 1/48 scale line drawings. Gun length, two sets of two points on the superstructure, hull width, and for the lower chassis, the distance between the two big wheels. Everything on the upper checks out nicely & is in proportion to one another. The most 'off' feature is the lower section regarding the wheels & tracks. If they had been stretched out more, it would be more Fireflyish. Angle on the glacis is nice too. A bit more slope than a normal M4.

The Firefly is a lengthened M4, that's true. but in reality it looks more stretched than lengthened. For example, taking a normal M4 & a M4A4, and lining up the turret rings, here's what happens on the superstructure: The M4A4 rear gains a little, but this is offset in a profile view by it losing some in front. That is because the glacis gets more slope (leans back farther), so some of that huge wall on the side which a Sherman is famous for disappears, so you see less surface area.

With regard to the Figarti funnies, I don't have any. But are they by any chance M4A4 also?

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Hi, I checked several measurements on the model vs. the measurements on Bradford's 1/48 scale line drawings. Gun length, two sets of two points on the superstructure, hull width, and for the lower chassis, the distance between the two big wheels. Everything on the upper checks out nicely & is in proportion to one another. The most 'off' feature is the lower section regarding the wheels & tracks. If they had been stretched out more, it would be more Fireflyish. Angle on the glacis is nice too. A bit more slope than a normal M4.

The Firefly is a lengthened M4, that's true. but in reality it looks more stretched than lengthened. For example, taking a normal M4 & a M4A4, and lining up the turret rings, here's what happens on the superstructure: The M4A4 rear gains a little, but this is offset in a profile view by it losing some in front. That is because the glacis gets more slope (leans back farther), so some of that huge wall on the side which a Sherman is famous for disappears, so you see less surface area.

With regard to the Figarti funnies, I don't have any. But are they by any chance M4A4 also?

No - the Figarti funnies are M4s, but that may be correct. And they also seem to be the correct size.

Terry

 

[Mitch]

Wells said, and, it was not nicknamed the Ronson' for nothing. Its a sad indictment that many died in the western front rather unecessarily because of the point Louis has raised.

It must have, for me, took cahunah's the size of grapefruits to lock yourself in one of these machines and went and looked for the enemy.
Mitch

Rob,

I have spoken with several US Tank crew from WWII in person (including an African American tanker from the 745th), and each and every one of them told me that the Sherman was crap, or worse than crap, a deathtrap. I have heard interviews with British Tank commanders (one of whom, with a terible burn-scarred face, lost his entire crew to a Tiger at Villers Bocage and only survived because he was blown out of the top of the turret with the 88mm shell hit) who also said that Shermans were death traps, and that while the Firefly gave them at least a slight chance of survival when they encountered the Tiger, it was still a "Ronson" which brewed up if it were hit even from the front where the armor was thickest.

It would take an average of 8-10 Shermans destroyed for each Tiger destroyed. That is 32-40 good young men dying (usually burning to death) to take out each Tiger crew. The Allies chose to mass produce a medium tank in quantity, knowing that they could win with quantity rather than quality, at the expense of a lot of lives.

On one of the Military Channel shows on the subject, the interviewer asked 6 different British WWII tankers if they would chose a Firefly or a Tiger to go into battle. All 6 immediately answered "a Tiger". With all due respect to all of the Sherman experts on this forum (I am not an expert, but I include myself in the following statement) as none of us have heard a shot fired in anger while operating a Sherman, I will defer to the men who fought in them, and who universally condemn the Sherman as an underarmored, undergunned, fire hazard.

 

[wwiibuff]

[
In looking at the compared view of the two tanks I was suddenly frightened by the driver's hatch on the K&C "Firefly" - that part never existed in that shape or form on any M4 variant ever built! A Grade of "F" on research and sculpting. Very disappointing.


Gary B.[/QUOTE]

I noticed this too about the hatches Gary. I've never seen a picture of any Sherman with that shape of driver's hatch.

Also, the muzzle brake to me is not correct. I've gone back and looked at many wartime photos of the Firefly and it's 17 pounder's muzzle brake and never seen one with the shape of the one on the K&C model. All the ones I've seen have a more rounded look or "globular" shape as on the Figarti model. To me, that's one of the things that stands out on the Firefly giving it a distinctive look... the barrel and muzzle brake. Anyone ever seen a photo of a Firefly's muzzle brake like the K&C version?

 

[Mitch]

Bet it will be a grade A seller!!!!!
Mitch

[
In looking at the compared view of the two tanks I was suddenly frightened by the driver's hatch on the K&C "Firefly" - that part never existed in that shape or form on any M4 variant ever built! A Grade of "F" on research and sculpting. Very disappointing.


Gary B.

I noticed this too about the hatches Gary. I've never seen a picture of any Sherman with that shape of driver's hatch.

Also, the muzzle brake to me is not correct. I've gone back and looked at many wartime photos of the Firefly and it's 17 pounder's muzzle brake and never seen one with the shape of the one on the K&C model. All the ones I've seen have a more rounded look or "globular" shape as on the Figarti model. To me, that's one of the things that stands out on the Firefly giving it a distinctive look... the barrel and muzzle brake. Anyone ever seen a photo of a Firefly's muzzle brake like the K&C version?[/QUOTE]

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Bet it will be a grade A seller!!!!!
Mitch




I noticed this too about the hatches Gary. I've never seen a picture of any Sherman with that shape of driver's hatch.

Also, the muzzle brake to me is not correct. I've gone back and looked at many wartime photos of the Firefly and it's 17 pounder's muzzle brake and never seen one with the shape of the one on the K&C model. All the ones I've seen have a more rounded look or "globular" shape as on the Figarti model. To me, that's one of the things that stands out on the Firefly giving it a distinctive look... the barrel and muzzle brake. Anyone ever seen a photo of a Firefly's muzzle brake like the K&C version?

[/QUOTE]

I have looked for a 17 pdr muzzle break like the K&C version on a Firefly, but have not found one.

Terry

 

[uksubs]

[
In looking at the compared view of the two tanks I was suddenly frightened by the driver's hatch on the K&C "Firefly" - that part never existed in that shape or form on any M4 variant ever built! A Grade of "F" on research and sculpting. Very disappointing.


Gary B.

I noticed this too about the hatches Gary. I've never seen a picture of any Sherman with that shape of driver's hatch.

Also, the muzzle brake to me is not correct. I've gone back and looked at many wartime photos of the Firefly and it's 17 pounder's muzzle brake and never seen one with the shape of the one on the K&C model. All the ones I've seen have a more rounded look or "globular" shape as on the Figarti model. To me, that's one of the things that stands out on the Firefly giving it a distinctive look... the barrel and muzzle brake. Anyone ever seen a photo of a Firefly's muzzle brake like the K&C version?[/QUOTE]

Looks like your spot on about the muzzle brake

 

[fmethorst]

Comments on a few points:

The 17 pounder did not have very good HE performance. The standard M3 gun of the Sherman was better in this respect. It's accuracy was also less than stellar, particularly with APDS ammunition (the more effective AT round). The Firefly was a stopgap improvisation.

The Stug III was the most numerous German AFV and late in the war often operated as a tank.

The KV series of tanks pre-dates the Tiger and Panther. While their armor was impressive early in the war their gun was very weak.

Both the M4/Sherman and T34 were produced and destroyed in the tens of thousands. With kill ratios less than 1:1 I'm not sure how an argument can be made for either tanks combat superiority.

 

[Mitch]

I think its the numerical superiority which was always the overwhelming factor. Nothing superior in Allied armour as we continually struggled to get the tank balance just right and, IMO never really suceeded
Mitch

Comments on a few points:

The 17 pounder did not have very good HE performance. The standard M3 gun of the Sherman was better in this respect. It's accuracy was also less than stellar, particularly with APDS ammunition (the more effective AT round). The Firefly was a stopgap improvisation.

The Stug III was the most numerous German AFV and late in the war often operated as a tank.

The KV series of tanks pre-dates the Tiger and Panther. While their armor was impressive early in the war their gun was very weak.

Both the M4/Sherman and T34 were produced and destroyed in the tens of thousands. With kill ratios less than 1:1 I'm not sure how an argument can be made for either tanks combat superiority.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Here is a photo of a firefly showing the globular muzzle brake, and unusually, what looks like an uncommon M4 version of a Firefly (note the 2 patches of welded armour on the side to protect the dry storage ammo lockers.

Terry

 

[wwiibuff]

I have looked for a 17 pdr muzzle break like the K&C version on a Firefly, but have not found one.

Terry[/QUOTE]

I'm afraid that it's because there wasn't one like it. I keep looking though.

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!