Firefly question (2 Viewers)

[Mitch]

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

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

Terry

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![/QUOTE]

 

[uksubs]

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.


Still best Allied anti tank gun used in the west + when it was used in a troop of three normal Sherman He performance would not be a problem + don't forget it was the Only allied tank in Normandy that could take on a Tiger tank , the US only had 75 & 76 gun Sherman's
The Ordnance Quick-Firing 17 pounder (or just 17 pdr) was a 76.2 mm (3 inch) gun developed by the United Kingdom during World War II. It was used as an anti-tank gun on its own carriage, as well as equipping a number of British tanks. It was the most effective Allied anti-tank gun of the war. Used with the APDS shot it was capable of defeating all but the thickest armour on German tanks. It was used to 'up-gun' some foreign-built vehicles in British service, notably the Sherman Firefly, giving British tank units the ability to hold their own with their German counterparts

 

[Blowtorch]

The K&C may not be the classic muzzlebreak, but I would bet it's real. Unless you get a good profile view in the WW2 pic, it would be hard to tell the one from the other due to the angles of the muzzlebreak involved. I'd give K&C a pass on this one.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

The K&C may not be the classic muzzlebreak, but I would bet it's real. Unless you get a good profile view in the WW2 pic, it would be hard to tell the one from the other due to the angles of the muzzlebreak involved. I'd give K&C a pass on this one.

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

Terry

 

[jazzeum]

Taking account his post on "2009 Was a Good Year" thread, I'd say he's not buying it but that he's letting them off the hook on this one; kind of like a second service in tennis.

 

[Eazy]

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.

 

[binder001]

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.

Louis, not to challenge your veterans, but the military statistics do NOT support the loss of "8-10 Shermans to each Tiger". First, except for the British experiences around Caen the Tigers (I & II) weren't terribly common on the Western front. Second what were the ACTUAL causes of loss of most medium tanks in the US Army? #1 was the towed AT gun firing from ambush, next was mines, Panzerfausts, etc. German tanks were down the list. The Army actually did do studies on the subject. Another detail - the average tank had one KIA per vehicle lost, not always all five men.

By the way, if you want to taken in any way seriously as a historian, don't quote the "Military Channel", "History Channel", etc. They do all the research of a Sgt Rock comic book. The veteran interviews are good, but as a lawyer you know quite well how to ask a question to get the answer you want. Do you think those producers didn't go into their film with a point of view? These are the same channels that provide us with "Monsterquest" and "UFO Files" as part of "history"

By the way, 745th was not one of the three "Colored" tank battalions, they were the 761st (Third Army in Europe), 784th (later arriving in Europe with First Army) another light tank battalion in Italy (I don't have my book here now).

GB

 

[wwiibuff]

The K&C may not be the classic muzzlebreak, but I would bet it's real. Unless you get a good profile view in the WW2 pic, it would be hard to tell the one from the other due to the angles of the muzzlebreak involved. I'd give K&C a pass on this one.

I'm not so sure about it being real after all the photos I've seen. And as far as the angles of the muzzle, IMO it's very clear that the K&C muzzle and the wartime photos' muzzles I've seen are different. But I'm still looking and hoping to find one that looks like the K&C muzzle. And from my perspective, it's not so much about giving K&C a "pass" (like I said I love K&C and normally don't worry so much about some inaccuracies/markings/etc., but in this case if I did buy it, I would always look at it on the shelf and say, "hey that muzzle is not right"... I don't know why, but with this tank, it seems to matter to me.

 

[binder001]

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

 

[Rob]

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.

No doubting mate,both releases are cool indeed. I have the deepest respect for the rivet and nuts and bolts men amongst us,but I prefer the History/evolution of the Tank in question and human stories behind the machines involved,when it comes to the Sherman I've heard many over the years and as someone said earlier you had to have some stones to fight in these things, and we should also remember they saw action in North Africa and were popular with troops there where they took on the PzIIIs and IVs with success. This side of the Sherman is often forgotten James.

Rob

 

[uksubs]

Is the K&C Firefly barrel fixed or does it come lose in the box ?
Thanks in advance

 

[wwiibuff]

No doubting mate,both releases are cool indeed. I have the deepest respect for the rivet and nuts and bolts men amongst us,but I prefer the History/evolution of the Tank in question and human stories behind the machines involved,when it comes to the Sherman I've heard many over the years and as someone said earlier you had to have some stones to fight in these things, and we should also remember they saw action in North Africa and were popular with troops there where they took on the PzIIIs and IVs with success. This side of the Sherman is often forgotten James.

Rob

Rob,

I don't know why I'm so stuck on this issue of the muzzle on the Firefly. It's really a minor thing. (repeat to myself) "it's really just a minor thing ... go ahead and order it... you're not a rivet counter... never have been... besides it looks really cool... you've always wanted a Firefly ... do it ... AGGGGH!" "HELP! HELP! , I'm turning into a rivet counter!":

 

[Rob]

Rob,

I don't know why I'm so stuck on this issue of the muzzle on the Firefly. It's really a minor thing. (repeat to myself) "it's really just a minor thing ... go ahead and order it... you're not a rivet counter... never have been... besides it looks really cool... you've always wanted a Firefly ... do it ... AGGGGH!" "HELP! HELP! , I'm turning into a rivet counter!":

If counting rivets is your thing mate all power to you

Rob

 

[uksubs]

Rob,

I don't know why I'm so stuck on this issue of the muzzle on the Firefly. It's really a minor thing. (repeat to myself) "it's really just a minor thing ... go ahead and order it... you're not a rivet counter... never have been... besides it looks really cool... you've always wanted a Firefly ... do it ... AGGGGH!" "HELP! HELP! , I'm turning into a rivet counter!":

-I thought the K&C Firefly was spot on but now you said about the barrel & it put me right of + for the money there charging I think it should be right

 

[jazzeum]

This may be just me (and I'm sure, as usual, no one will listen to me ) but the term "rivet counter" is a pejorative term, dismissive of those who insist that manufacturers reproduce accurate military models and a term that, in my opinion, should be avoided.

Although I may not always avoid buying a model because it is not one hundred percent accurate, there is nothing wrong with those who demand such accuracy, particularly when you are plunking down quite a bit of money.

 

[Rob]

This may be just me (and I'm sure, as usual, no one will listen to me ) but the term "rivet counter" is a pejorative term, dismissive of those who insist that manufacturers reproduce accurate military models and a term that, in my opinion, should be avoided.

Although I may not always avoid buying a model because it is not one hundred percent accurate, there is nothing wrong with those who demand such accuracy, particularly when you are plunking down quite a bit of money.

They love it Brad, rivet counters is a badge of honour

Rob

 

[uksubs]

This may be just me (and I'm sure, as usual, no one will listen to me ) but the term "rivet counter" is a pejorative term, dismissive of those who insist that manufacturers reproduce accurate military models and a term that, in my opinion, should be avoided.

Although I may not always avoid buying a model because it is not one hundred percent accurate, there is nothing wrong with those who demand such accuracy, particularly when you are plunking down quite a bit of money.

Well put Brad

 

[Louis Badolato]

Louis, not to challenge your veterans, but the military statistics do NOT support the loss of "8-10 Shermans to each Tiger". First, except for the British experiences around Caen the Tigers (I & II) weren't terribly common on the Western front. Second what were the ACTUAL causes of loss of most medium tanks in the US Army? #1 was the towed AT gun firing from ambush, next was mines, Panzerfausts, etc. German tanks were down the list. The Army actually did do studies on the subject. Another detail - the average tank had one KIA per vehicle lost, not always all five men.

By the way, if you want to taken in any way seriously as a historian, don't quote the "Military Channel", "History Channel", etc. They do all the research of a Sgt Rock comic book. The veteran interviews are good, but as a lawyer you know quite well how to ask a question to get the answer you want. Do you think those producers didn't go into their film with a point of view? These are the same channels that provide us with "Monsterquest" and "UFO Files" as part of "history"

By the way, 745th was not one of the three "Colored" tank battalions, they were the 761st (Third Army in Europe), 784th (later arriving in Europe with First Army) another light tank battalion in Italy (I don't have my book here now).

GB

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 . . .

 

[Phantom Warrior]

This may be just me (and I'm sure, as usual, no one will listen to me ) but the term "rivet counter" is a pejorative term, dismissive of those who insist that manufacturers reproduce accurate military models and a term that, in my opinion, should be avoided.

Although I may not always avoid buying a model because it is not one hundred percent accurate, there is nothing wrong with those who demand such accuracy, particularly when you are plunking down quite a bit of money.

I must seem like a rivet counter but I just note the flaws and unless they are really bad, buy the piece anyway. If I insisted on complete accuracy (barring the inconclusive bits of research), my collection would be very, very small.

And I don't mind being called a rivet counter.

Terry

 

[wwiibuff]

This may be just me (and I'm sure, as usual, no one will listen to me ) but the term "rivet counter" is a pejorative term, dismissive of those who insist that manufacturers reproduce accurate military models and a term that, in my opinion, should be avoided.

Although I may not always avoid buying a model because it is not one hundred percent accurate, there is nothing wrong with those who demand such accuracy, particularly when you are plunking down quite a bit of money.

I agree Brad. I was only kidding about being a rivet counter, and for those that do require absolute accuracy, I think that is fine, especially due to the price of these models. Although I'm not one that demands 100% accuracy in every model, there are some things that might keep me from buying a particular piece and this is one of them.

BTW- I'll admit that I did have to look up the word "pejorative" in the dictionary to be able to fully understand your post.