I was wondering, which firefly variants had the appliqué armour added in WW II? And when exactly did they started to add the appliqué armour.

I've build Tasca's firefly, really a wonderful kit compared to the dragon it wich I've also build, but I'm wondering if I should add the appliqué armour or not.

Tasca's manuals states that only the NZ tank had the appliqué armour added, but all reference photo's I see have appliqué armour added.

I'm thinking of building this tank, Polish Firefly VC in Tielt, which also has appliqué armour added, but I'm not sure if the tank is original...



Some clarification on appliqué would come in handy!

Thanks!

I can't really give you time frames or anything, but most VC fireflies should not have applique. Since their ammo was not stored in the same places as on the regular M4A4 upon which it was based, there was no need to weld applique there. The exception, of course, would be if an M4A4 was built with the plan to have it be a regular 75mm armed tank, and then the firefly gun/turret added later. In that case, it might very well have applique.

Rob

Thanks for your answer Rob, but how come then that this Firefly, and almost all others you can find today have appliqué armour?

When M4A4s were taken out of the supply chain to modify them as Firefly VCs the armor was irrelevant. Those new ones coming into stock (produced later) had the applique from the factory. Older M4A4s w/o applique were also in stock. Both of these types were used as the base tanks for the Fireflies. Some did, some didn't. As Rob says the ammo bin lockers made the armor irrelvant. But like I stated, some "fresh off the boat" 75mm tanks w/the armor were diverted into the VC program.

One thing to note however: the one you pictured has the earlier DV hoods. To do this properly, you'd have to switch out the Tasca hull with a Formations M4A4 DV hull.

There's a similar thread about this over on TL
http://www.track-link.net/forum/research_ww2/15672

Thanks Roy, for the clarification.

So, applique armour on the firefly was irrelevant, but they still added extra applique to the turret...

Two more questions, how can you see that the firefly on the photo has the earlier DV hoods, what's the exact difference wuth the later syle DV hoods?

And, I noticed some firefly's have some sort of brackets over the hoods, and others don't. Don't really know how to call these, on the tasca firefly it's PE, and you only have to attach them to the NZ firefly. The firefly on the photo has the brackets over the DV hoods, and also on the turret.

Thanks!

Can anybody help me with the brackets on the DV hoods? I'd like to paint the Firefly tonight, and don't know if I should add the brackets or not...

And of course, if someone can explain me the differences on the DV hoods, I would be very grateful! :-)

Thanks!

The only really irrelevant appliqué plates were the ones on the hull sides because there were no more ammo bins behind. The other plates were still useful to protect the Direct Vision slits and the turret front side.
The brackets are guards over the periscopes and were mainly added when the tanks went to the remanufacturing depot in the USA - before shipment to UK through Lend-Lease (and eventual conversion to Firefly). I do not think the British depots added them. But they are just 'artistically' bent wire...
There were just one DV hull type for the M4A4, I think Roy was just telling you the Firefly you show is a DV version, not the later non DV variant.
HTH

Thanks for the info claude. I made my tasca firefly to represent the polish firefly on the picture, so with applique armour and with the guards.

One last question, what's the difference between DV version and the later non DV variant? If I understand it right, all firefly's VC are the DV version, like on the picture? So the Tasca is non DV version? You've lost me here...

Thanks,

Dave

Dave, you really are new to the Sherman thing, huh?

Most VC fireflies would not have been DV versions, since the direct vision was the earlier type. So unless a VC was made from a remanufactured, already in service A4, it should not have the DV.

In the pic you provided, though, with the applique in front of the drivers positions, it's hard to make it out as a DV version. Roy has a very "practiced" eye, and so picked up on it right away.

The difference is that the DV has a slot in front of the driver's hatch that could be lifted up to look out of for vision, sort of like, but not exactly like, the driver's vision port on a Tiger tank or Pz III, Pz IV, etc. The later type had a periscope in the drivers hatch as well as a periscope just in front of the hatch.

In the pic you provided, the DV slot is mostly masked by the applique armor. As Roy said, if you wanted to make this exact version, Formations is the only company that makes an A4 DV hull. Formations makes EXCELLENT stuff, so if you really want to make that EXACT tank the photo, you'd either need to get the Formations hull OR do some scratchbuilding, making a DV hull from a Tasca or DML non-DV hull.

Rob
P.S. Don't expect any extra info from Roy for the next few days, as he is busy at AMPS, which I'm missing this year :-(

Robert,

Thanks for the info, that's exactly what i wanted to know!

And yes, I'm new to the Sherman thing, but I'm learning a lot, fast!

Thanks again!

Dave

I am far from being a sherman expert but can offer you this morsel of info.....
The turret armoured 'cheek' was added due to the need to fit a radio into the turret and so the turret casting had to be thinned in this area (enabling more room on the inside). This how ever made that part of the turret a weak spot and so applique armour was added over the area.
Later castings of Sherman turrets had a 'cheek' built into the castings to rectify the problem.

I prepare to be corrected by the true shermanaholics, but I think thats the jist of it!

HTH,

James

Totally wrong! The radio was fitted into an armoured box added to the turret bustle. The applique and later cast in cheek armour in front on the gunners station was due to thinning of the armour to allow fiting of the traverse gear and gun controls.

Applque armor could appear on ANY dry stowage Sherman. This was instituted to cover the ammunition bins, as noted. But this modification could be done either at the factory, in an ordnance park, or even in the field and kits were made for that to happen. Older hulls used for training in the USA and rebuilt before being issued for Lend-Lease typically had it added at that time. Fireflies were built out of stocks available in the UK, and on hulls that arrived during the production run from the USA. Some had applique and some did not. While it is true that the Firefly didn't "need" the armor in those places because the ammo was relocated, the crews appreciated any extra armor no matter where it was. There is no convention regarding which Firefly models should have it or not. The modification wasn't part of the Firefly program at all. Early models were statistically a little more likely not to have it, as they were readily available hulls in the UK that hadn't been modified and to add the applique would add to production time--just what wasn't wanted. Leter batches had more tanks that had come from the US, and many of those had the extra armor
Greg

Hi Dave,

Applique armour was applied at the factory, to all models of the Sherman from the Summer of 1943. While at the same time other factories were set up, tasked with fitting applique to tanks already built. Typically the armour covered the ammunition racks, turret right cheek and the drivers hoods.

All Firefly MkIC and Hybrid MkIC tanks had the full applique fit. However from late 1943 some of these tanks were fitted with a new design turret, having a thickened casting at the right cheek, making the applique patch unnecessary. All high bustle turrets were of this later type.

About half the Firefly MkVC tanks converted had applique armour, including a batch of older ex- US Army tanks that were remanufactured in the US and converted in late 1944 in the UK. Generally speaking, tanks shipped to England prior to the Summer of 1943 did not have applique armour. Remember that it took 3 to 6 months for tanks built in the USA to reach England. When the Firefly program started in early 1944, most of the tanks used were the final models of the 75mm armed mid-production models. and had full applique.

The Firefly had new armoured ammo bins situated lower in the hull. So technically it did not need the extra armour. But any armour is good armour and no attempt was made to remove it! Note that tanks fitted with applique were de-luxe models with a host of new fittings. These included spotlight, periscope guards, hatch stays and counter springs, up-armoured nose (not M4A4) and barrel cleaning rods etc.