Firefly question (1 Viewer)

[Phantom Warrior]

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

Probably true, but a Panther is not a Tiger.

Terry

 

[binder001]

OK, back to the original questions of the posting; I just pulled out the big volume "Sherman" by R. P. Hunnicutt. An M4 initial/mid production was 232 inches in length (gun forward), the M4A4 was 238.5 inches long overall (the lower hull was 11 inches longer than the M4). Both tanks are 103 inches wide and 108 inches tall to the top of the commander's hatch. These are the factual dimensions of the tanks and are not variable by "artistic lisence". Now everyone who has the tanks can get out the rulers and calculators (mine usually live in their boxes).

Among the problems with getting into the whole "my tank is better than yours" things is 1) each tank has ardent admirers and detractors and few people are swayed by these multipage postings and 2) one needs to look at the bigger picture. Tanks don't win wars, they are just a weapon developed to meet a perceived need. The Sherman and the Panthers/Tigers were developed around different criteria. The American's needed a medium tank for the exploitation of a breakthrough, the Germans wanted to have a tank that could dominate other tanks. The Sherman couldn't penetrate the Tiger from the front, but the Tiger could never have benn a parctical tank to land over beaches in Normandy or the Pacific. The Tigers had engine troubles and the Panthers ate their own transmissions unless the driver was experienced and careful. German had few experienced and careful drivers left by 1944, so the Panthers final drives had stripped gears. All the German tanks suffered from fuel shortages as Allied aircraft shot up the fuel trucks and/or bombed the refineries. The German military also tended to build new tanks but few spare parts, so many German tanks would be abandoned due to a mechanical problem. The British or Americans with their Shermans would tow the tank back and put in new parts and get it running again. The Sherman wasn't a perfect design but it was the tank that was available in quantity when the Centurion and Pershing were still images in the designers' minds. The Sherman was a part of a system that beat the Axis systems. It was available in sufficient numbers all around the world. Could one Sherman beat one Panther - it came down to the crews and the tactical situation. Could an army equipped with Shermans beat an Army equipped with Tigers and Panthers? I think history has alreadty answered that one!

By the way, one German website showed that in the last desperate hours of the Reich the Germans grabbed every tank available, including captured test vehicles from Kummersdorf. There were several Sherman tanks defending Berlin from the Russians. War does create strange bedfellows.

GB

 

[Blowtorch]

but the Tiger could never have benn a parctical tank to land over beaches in Normandy or the Pacific.

Good post GB, but the Pershing is in the same class as the Panther or Tiger & they were sent to the Pacific for the Japan invasion that never came. Also USMC in the Cold War played with a much larger tank in the sand (M103)

 

[uksubs]

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

Comet tank for me

 

[OzDigger]

Comet tank for me

I do have a Corgi 1/50 scale diecast Comet, not bad as Brit tanks go

 

[uksubs]

I do have a Corgi 1/50 scale diecast Comet, not bad as Brit tanks go

The Comet came with a shorter version of the 17 pounder gun as well

 

[Rob]

I don't care what you lot say, I still say the Sherman was easily the best Tank of the whole war!

Rob

 

[Eazy]

I don't care what you lot say, I still say the Sherman was easily the best Tank of the whole war!

Rob

Or was it the T34 Rob?

Let the debate begin...........

 

[Rob]

Or was it the T34 Rob?

Let the debate begin...........

Unleash the rivet counters of war my friend and let us do Battle!

Rob

 

[Rob]

OK, back to the original questions of the posting; I just pulled out the big volume "Sherman" by R. P. Hunnicutt. An M4 initial/mid production was 232 inches in length (gun forward), the M4A4 was 238.5 inches long overall (the lower hull was 11 inches longer than the M4). Both tanks are 103 inches wide and 108 inches tall to the top of the commander's hatch. These are the factual dimensions of the tanks and are not variable by "artistic lisence". Now everyone who has the tanks can get out the rulers and calculators (mine usually live in their boxes).

Among the problems with getting into the whole "my tank is better than yours" things is 1) each tank has ardent admirers and detractors and few people are swayed by these multipage postings and 2) one needs to look at the bigger picture. Tanks don't win wars, they are just a weapon developed to meet a perceived need. The Sherman and the Panthers/Tigers were developed around different criteria. The American's needed a medium tank for the exploitation of a breakthrough, the Germans wanted to have a tank that could dominate other tanks. The Sherman couldn't penetrate the Tiger from the front, but the Tiger could never have benn a parctical tank to land over beaches in Normandy or the Pacific. The Tigers had engine troubles and the Panthers ate their own transmissions unless the driver was experienced and careful. German had few experienced and careful drivers left by 1944, so the Panthers final drives had stripped gears. All the German tanks suffered from fuel shortages as Allied aircraft shot up the fuel trucks and/or bombed the refineries. The German military also tended to build new tanks but few spare parts, so many German tanks would be abandoned due to a mechanical problem. The British or Americans with their Shermans would tow the tank back and put in new parts and get it running again. The Sherman wasn't a perfect design but it was the tank that was available in quantity when the Centurion and Pershing were still images in the designers' minds. The Sherman was a part of a system that beat the Axis systems. It was available in sufficient numbers all around the world. Could one Sherman beat one Panther - it came down to the crews and the tactical situation. Could an army equipped with Shermans beat an Army equipped with Tigers and Panthers? I think history has alreadty answered that one!

By the way, one German website showed that in the last desperate hours of the Reich the Germans grabbed every tank available, including captured test vehicles from Kummersdorf. There were several Sherman tanks defending Berlin from the Russians. War does create strange bedfellows.

GB

All joking aside this is a very good post. The Sherman was part of the system that one,I think thats a good way of putting it and the Tank played its role in that victory.

Far from a match for the Tiger it was still a valuable weapon for the allies.

Now you've posted Gary, how long before we see a 'German Sherman' for Berlin?!

Rob

 

[binder001]

Now you've posted Gary, how long before we see a 'German Sherman' for Berlin?!Rob

K&C or Figarti could produce one. The Germans were so short of combat vehicles that they would press almost any captured tanks into use. There have been photos of the Germans using M4A3s captured in the Battle of the Bulge, or a Firefly captiured in Normandy, and some ex-Soviet Shermans. The problem with capturted stuff comes when you need parts or run out of ammo.

GB

 

[Mitch]

Eazy...

Best tank or just one which, was such a good design that it was used in so many forms. in that sense then it would probably be best but, for sheer numbers the sherman and t-34 were by far the most produced and probably turned the tide in terms of numbers against the germans in the field.

Best in terms of technology and things like that well you cannot look much further IMO than German armour especially, when you thin k of some of the AFV's they produced and numbers in the conditions they faced. Continuous air attack by day and night and our fighter bombers attacking everything that moved.

Tigers I and II were along with the panther and Jagpanther (though the latter two were better than the first) probably the best tanks produced in the war.
Mitch

Or was it the T34 Rob?

Let the debate begin...........

 

[Rob]

Eazy...

Best tank or just one which, was such a good design that it was used in so many forms. in that sense then it would probably be best but, for sheer numbers the sherman and t-34 were by far the most produced and probably turned the tide in terms of numbers against the germans in the field.

Best in terms of technology and things like that well you cannot look much further IMO than German armour especially, when you thin k of some of the AFV's they produced and numbers in the conditions they faced. Continuous air attack by day and night and our fighter bombers attacking everything that moved.

Tigers I and II were along with the panther and Jagpanther (though the latter two were better than the first) probably the best tanks produced in the war.
Mitch

I'll say it before someone else does Mitch Not sure we can count the Jagdpanther as its not a true tank, its a tank killer/Hunter. Not being Pedantic Mitch but thought we should discount it.

For me its between the Tiger I Panther and T34,but all these had strengths and weaknesses didn't they.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

No probs Rob its why I used AFV's. but, in terms of technology the panther and Jagp brought in especially, their suspension allowing accurate firing on the move, its them for me.
Mitch

I'll say it before someone else does Mitch Not sure we can count the Jagdpanther as its not a true tank, its a tank killer/Hunter. Not being Pedantic Mitch but thought we should discount it.

For me its between the Tiger I Panther and T34,but all these had strengths and weaknesses didn't they.

Rob

 

[Rob]

No probs Rob its why I used AFV's. but, in terms of technology the panther and Jagp brought in especially, their suspension allowing accurate firing on the move, its them for me.
Mitch

Sorry,missed AFV.Yes indeed,the Jagdpanther was an awesome weapon,we should I guess be thankful they were too few in number. Would like to see K&C do another of these beasts, been quite a while since the last one.

Rob

 

[Mitch]

Rob..

I am grateful for their lack of numbers and, the fact that we had the air superiority we had.

Yes, its been to long since we had one and, the new panther detail would bode well for its release.
Mitch

Sorry,missed AFV.Yes indeed,the Jagdpanther was an awesome weapon,we should I guess be thankful they were too few in number. Would like to see K&C do another of these beasts, been quite a while since the last one.

Rob

 

[Blowtorch]

Comet tank for me

I'd buy one

 

[Eazy]

I've had a request for side on pix of the tanks and muzzles.. So here goes.

Here's the Figarti Firefly.

And here's the K&C Firefly.

 

[Mitch]

Eazy...

Do you have a preference mate?
Mitch

I've had a request for side on pix of the tanks and muzzles.. So here goes.

Here's the Figarti Firefly.

And here's the K&C Firefly.

 

[Eazy]

If pushed to choose I'd go for the Figarti version. It looks right to me.
Also it was such a great day at that London show last year when Clive surprised everybody with the Firefly and Winter 88.
The downside to the Figarti version is I've had some paint flaking off on the front though Simon has kindly offered to fix it for me.
Overall I'm very happy and fortunate to have both versions.