OFFICIAL Firefly Photos (3 Viewers)

[Steven Chong]

... That would make the white triangle & #3 inaccurate on the rear turret bin. The tactical sign should be a diamond. The white is okay since it does not belong to a brigade. Since the tank is RHQ. it does not belong to a squadron (company) or troop (platoon)and therefore #3 is out of place...

I understand that the markings of the Figarti Firefly was researched by Clive at the Imperial War Museum. It represents the Firefly tank temporarily commanded by Gunner Joe Ekins and credited with ending the career of Michael Wittmann. The tank was supposed to be part of 3rd Troop, A Squadron, 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry, so the white triangle and #3 is correct. I also understand that the number of this Firefly was "12" so I do not know why it does not reflect the numbering system.

 

[Blowtorch]

- if the US had invested in something similar in their Shermans, I am sure they would feel the same about this iconic tank -

An interesting Sherman tidbit is that the US 76mm gun was potentially as potent as the 17 pounder...the tubes had very similar ballistic profiles. What differed was the ammunition. The US wanted to use underpowered AP ammo to preserve tube life. The Brits (17pdr) & Germans (75L70 gun) chose higher powered ammo & preferred to win battles. The Americans hoped to have a fancy resolution to this problem in the form of the high-tech HVAP ammo, but was late to the party. As proof of concept, 76mm HVAP made short work of T-34/85s in Korea. The Sherman 76mm with green crews did extraordinarily well against veteran North Korean T-34s. The Sherman must have been a really fantastic tank design, because even as late as the 1960s, many Israeli tank veterans preferred their Super Shemans to Centurions

p.s. very nice picture composition there

 

[Phantom Warrior]

An interesting Sherman tidbit is that the US 76mm gun was potentially as potent as the 17 pounder...the tubes had very similar ballistic profiles. What differed was the ammunition. The US wanted to use underpowered AP ammo to preserve tube life. The Brits (17pdr) & Germans (75L70 gun) chose higher powered ammo & preferred to win battles. The Americans hoped to have a fancy resolution to this problem in the form of the high-tech HVAP ammo, but was late to the party. As proof of concept, 76mm HVAP made short work of T-34/85s in Korea. The Sherman 76mm with green crews did extraordinarily well against veteran North Korean T-34s. The Sherman must have been a really fantastic tank design, because even as late as the 1960s, many Israeli tank veterans preferred their Super Shemans to Centurions

p.s. very nice picture composition there

All true. To show the difference, the 17 pdr APC shells had 9 pds of propellant and could penetrat 163mm of armour at 500 yards; the 76mm had only 3.6 pds of propellant and could penetrate only 116mm of armour at 500 yards.

Terry

 

[Rob]

All true. To show the difference, the 17 pdr APC shells had 9 pds of propellant and could penetrat 163mm of armour at 500 yards; the 76mm had only 3.6 pds of propellant and could penetrate only 116mm of armour at 500 yards.

Terry

So with 80mm side armour and within range of Ekins 17pounder those three Tigers I he took out really were dead meat wern't they.It really was something that the Allies finally had a gun that could open up a Tiger,meaning they were no longer almost invulnerable.From the side the Panther was even more dead with just 50mm,its front armour of 80mm sloping though gave pretty good protection.Does anyone know if the 17pounder or 76MM could penetrate the front of the Panther.

(Also while we are on penetration can anyone tell me if a rocket from a Typhoon would be effective against either a King Tiger or Jagdtiger-sorry guys i am really not trying to drift the thread but i can't seem to find a definitive answer-many thanks for any info)

Rob

 

[noli-poli]

I understand that the markings of the Figarti Firefly was researched by Clive at the Imperial War Museum. It represents the Firefly tank temporarily commanded by Gunner Joe Ekins and credited with ending the career of Michael Wittmann. The tank was supposed to be part of 3rd Troop, A Squadron, 1st Northamptonshire Yeomanry, so the white triangle and #3 is correct. I also understand that the number of this Firefly was "12" so I do not know why it does not reflect the numbering system.

Thanks Steven.

As I have said in an earlier thread, the British markings varied by units and never implemented the marking/naming convention as regiments were moved around to different divisions and brigades during the course of the war. At times, there was no time to change the call signs (tank turret numbers). It is possible that this tank may have been in the RHQ and attached to the A Squadron...thus, the white #3 & triangle in the back.

The U.S. Army has a diciplined naming convention which was observed strictly. (There were instances when they intentionaly erased bumper codes so as to keep the units unknown to enemy operatives and spies operating in the same area).

N-P

 

[Blowtorch]

(Also while we are on penetration can anyone tell me if a rocket from a Typhoon would be effective against either a King Tiger or Jagdtiger-sorry guys i am really not trying to drift the thread but i can't seem to find a definitive answer-many thanks for any info)

Rob

A rocket would be hitting much thinner top armor; no data here, but I can't suspect anything would survive. Even if the rocket hit next to the tank, I could imagine the blast flipping it over

 

[Phantom Warrior]

So with 80mm side armour and within range of Ekins 17pounder those three Tigers I he took out really were dead meat wern't they.It really was something that the Allies finally had a gun that could open up a Tiger,meaning they were no longer almost invulnerable.From the side the Panther was even more dead with just 50mm,its front armour of 80mm sloping though gave pretty good protection.Does anyone know if the 17pounder or 76MM could penetrate the front of the Panther.

(Also while we are on penetration can anyone tell me if a rocket from a Typhoon would be effective against either a King Tiger or Jagdtiger-sorry guys i am really not trying to drift the thread but i can't seem to find a definitive answer-many thanks for any info)

Rob

The Panthers front armour was 80mm at a 55 degree slope effectively making it 145mm thick. A 76 mm gun firing an APC round could penetrate only 116 mm at 500 metres (yards) so unless the shot hit the bottom of the gun mantlet and deflected down through the thin hull deck armour into the ammo racks directly below, it could not take out a Panther from the front unless it hit the turret from close range well below normal combat distance. The 17 pdr could penetrate the Panther turret at 2500 yds, the gun mantlet at 1600 yards but needed to be within 400 yards and below normal combat range to penetrate the sloped front armour.

Terry

 

[Phantom Warrior]

(Also while we are on penetration can anyone tell me if a rocket from a Typhoon would be effective against either a King Tiger or Jagdtiger-sorry guys i am really not trying to drift the thread but i can't seem to find a definitive answer-many thanks for any info)

Rob

The typhoon rocket going up against a King Tiger or Jagdtiger would have to hit the thin-walled engine compartment or the tank's tracks to have any real destructive effect. Analysis after Normandy battle showed a "hit-rate" for the typhoon fired rockets of only 4%. Myth vs reality

Terry

 

[Blowtorch]

The typhoon rocket going up against a King Tiger or Jagdtiger would have to hit the thin-walled engine compartment or the tank's tracks to have any real destructive effect. Analysis after Normandy battle showed a "hit-rate" for the typhoon fired rockets of only 4%. Myth vs reality

Terry

any info on the 'kill rate'? a 4% hit rate aint so bad when there are 50 typhoons with 8 rockets per for every German heavy

 

[Phantom Warrior]

any info on the 'kill rate'? a 4% hit rate aint so bad when there are 50 typhoons with 8 rockets per for every German heavy

I don't know how they measured it exactly. It was based on analysing destroyed tanks so presumably the rocket had hit the engine compartment ( or the tracks ??) to "destroy" the tank, whatever they meant by destroy. The 4% hit rate could be for hitting the tank anywhere or just the engine compartment but probably meant a destructive hit. And I don't know if it was 4% per rocket or per aircraft salvo but probably per aircraft salvo. I think it means a Typhoon firing all it's rockets had a 4% chance to take out a Tiger or King Tiger.

The point of the article was the Typhoon rockets were very inaccurate and performed well below expectations against the German heavy tanks. They would have done a bit better against Panthers and Panzer IVs for destruction, but not accuracy.

Terry

 

[spartan71]

I just received My Firefly, And its perfect!!!, Way to Go Rick/ Figarti!!!, I like it better than the K&C british sherman!!.

 

[fmethorst]

I think the 4% hit rate number comes from trials conducted against tank sized targets at training grounds in England. The rockets had decent penetrative power and trials against Panther tanks showed they could penetrate everywhere except the front. The problem was they were terribly inaccurate, even in salvos of eight. One can imagine that with the target possibly moving and the attacking aircraft receiving anti-aircraft fire the actual hit rate would be even worse than 4%. Of other weapons carried by Allied aircraft (guns, cannons, bombs) only bombs posed a real threat to tanks but these were difficult to deliver on target. German tank busting aircraft carried much heavier armament such as the Ju87G displayed below.

Another thing to keep in mind is the danger to the attacking aircraft, particularly if the vehicle being attacked is accompanied by anti-aircraft units.

I think the effectiveness of aircraft against armored vehicles is often overstated. There is no disputing the disruptive, psychological or intelligence gathering impact but beyond that I simply don't believe they were decisive when employed in the direct attack role.

Table 5.2 shows the results of three British studies of Panther tanks that were examined, two during the Normandy campaign and one during the Ardennes battle. No information is provided to describe the methodology used to come up with these results so I can hardly say this is representative of the actual totals but I think the numbers are large enough to be somewhat informative.

 

[Rob]

Thanks guys thats all very interesting.Theres no doubt the 'Taxi ranks' of Typhoons had a huge impact in Normandy,i can't honestly think the Germans would be so cautious in moving their precious armour if there wasn't a real threat from the Air.I think we can agree that although not accurate, a hit from one of these rockets would be enough to destroy or disable a Panther or Tiger I.

I for one am very thankful to those Allied Pilots whose very presence in the air over Normandy struck fear and terror into the hearts of German Tank crew and severely limited their movements on the ground.Even the mighty Tiger had a weapon to fear.


Rob

 

[Rob]

So while i've got the attention of so many of the forum experts,i hope you'll indulge me again.Apart from a bomb or rocket from the air,did the Allies have a weapon capable of taking out a Jagdtiger?.

Rob

 

[OzDigger]

So while i've got the attention of so many of the forum experts,i hope you'll indulge me again.Apart from a bomb or rocket from the air,did the Allies have a weapon capable of taking out a Jagdtiger?.

Rob

Rob, I'm no expert but many an expert has said that the queen of the battle field (artillery) could take out any sized tank including Jagdtigers. The larger calibers could over turn a tank and smaller field guns could knock off a track, the end result would be the same with a Jagdtiger due to their limited gun traverse. Jagdtigers were slow moving making them more vulnerable to artillery like tanks in WWI. It was only when tanks got faster that artillery became less of a threat.

 

[Rob]

Rob, I'm no expert but many an expert has said that the queen of the battle field (artillery) could take out any sized tank including Jagdtigers. The larger calibers could over turn a tank and smaller field guns could knock off a track, the end result would be the same with a Jagdtiger due to their limited gun traverse.

And i guess once a track is off,even the mighty Jagdtiger is just one big metal Pillbox easily outflanked.Must have taken some guts to crew one of these monsters in the last days of War.I understand these things were so heavy that many bridges in Europe simply could not take the weight.

Rob

 

[OzDigger]

Thanks for the link, it supports all the other evidence I have that the Canadians got Wittman and his crew. Personally I am more inclined to believe the eye witness accounts of several experienced Canadian tank crews that actually saw the turret blow off from secondary explosions over one very inexperienced Brit gunner. Other members can 'think' what they like

Here's that post of mine Rob and I have to admit I assumed that Ekins didn't mention the turret being blown off. Which is why I was subsequently interested in hearing the Bovington version as I can only get so much information from my limited reference library and off the web.

 

[OzDigger]

And i guess once a track is off,even the mighty Jagdtiger is just one big metal Pillbox easily outflanked.Must have taken some guts to crew one of these monsters in the last days of War.I understand these things were so heavy that many bridges in Europe simply could not take the weight.

Rob

True, the Jadgtiger and other turret-less AFV's are relatively easy to isolate if immobilized. Not the same with a Tiger and other heavy tanks with turrets. As long as their turret can traverse they can give anyone within range a bad hair day, especially over open terrain.

 

[Rob]

Thanks Oz,i should not have jumped to conclusions as i did.Also there is and probably will always be doubt about who actual got him.If Ekins didn't then at least he got three others and if the Canadians did then good on them.

We should also i guess thank the guy who thought of putting that 17pounder in the Sherman

Rob

 

[Phantom Warrior]

And i guess once a track is off,even the mighty Jagdtiger is just one big metal Pillbox easily outflanked.Must have taken some guts to crew one of these monsters in the last days of War.I understand these things were so heavy that many bridges in Europe simply could not take the weight.

Rob

The tracks and rear armor/engine compartments were vulnerable to 17 pdr, 76 mm AT rounds and even bazookas. Sounds like a simple question but the answer is very complex. It depends not only on the gun but very much on the type of projectile being used, and especially for solid shot, the range.

Side skirts on Panzer IVs, sandbags on Shermans and bed springs on T-34s were to reduce the effect of shaped charge AT rounds by igniting the charge so far from the tank armour, the molten jet would not be long enough to penetrate into the interior of the tank. These measures were not effective against a high velocity solid AT round at 500 - 1000 metres.

The composition of the armour and the slope also affected the rounds effectiveness. Sloped armour could actually deflect shots at certain speeds and angles of impact. And some high velocity rounds went so fast, especially at close range, they were known to shatter on impact and not penetrate the tank armour.

Terry