Gee, I thought this forum was all about asking advice and feedback on concepts and projects, among other things - but I guess you'd like to change all that to suit your own little find-things-out-for-yourself attitude.

. . . grammar Nazi . . .

I've already wasted enough time that could have been better spent model building.

Quoted Text

---

M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work (on mantlet, new gun barrel, enlarged turret bustle, blanked-off bow MG, etc., etc.) would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD (which was slightly more greenish). I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources. (M4's in British service in North Africa were repainted sand colors, but generally only to the bottoms of the sponsons; lower hulls were usually left OD - although a white counter-shading was sometimes employed). Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)? If so, any surviving Firefly's into 1945, and after paint fading, would the two colors have shown a marked difference - British OD to a greenish hue, and US OD to a brownish hue?

---

a similar thought hit me about two weeks ago, and here's why.

I have several Sherman books from various sources. I found this one that seems to cover all of them from the prototype to the M4a6. The book deals a lot with manufacturing, and I saw this one photo of two M4 turrets mounted on a very large indexing table that was mounted to an even larger boring mill. The turret closest to the camera was a Firefly turret! Not even the slightest doubt about it! Can't remember the exact plant location, but seems like it was either Michigan or maybe Ohio in the USA. This tells me that they wouldn't ship a primer painted turret to England for assembly as it would likely be a ball of rust. Plus it would have been much easier to simply install the turret on a hull during assembly. Then they just had to seal off the back opening (radios), and paint the tank.
gary

who knew Americans actually indulged in sarcasm, I was lead to believe they didn't understand it?!

Gary,

The US did not help with the 17 pounder coversion because "we" did not want the weapon, and did not want to put the resources into the project. As a result they had to use already manufasctured tanks as they were allotted to the UK under lend lease. They had no choice over what was being procuced.

There was a very specific list of features for a tank to qualify for the 17 pdr conversion. Many tanks in the UK did not meet those requirements.

True, it does not make any sense to us 70 years later, but it is what it is.

Gary,

The US did not help with the 17 pounder coversion because "we" did not want the weapon, and did not want to put the resources into the project. As a result they had to use already manufasctured tanks as they were allotted to the UK under lend lease. They had no choice over what was being procuced.

There was a very specific list of features for a tank to qualify for the 17 pdr conversion. Many tanks in the UK did not meet those requirements.

True, it does not make any sense to us 70 years later, but it is what it is.

The 17lb's recoil took it all the way to the back of the turret. The British radio sets were always situated at the rear of the turret. To make room for the radio, they had to cut a hole in the rear turret wall and make a bustle extension. Guess they just couldn't find another location for the radio.

How does that relate to my post?

True, it does not make any sense to us 70 years later, but it is what it is.

Would not have been a little more feasible to cut the rear port out while going thru the machining process. Looks like internal hull mods could have been done in a fraction of the time if they'd been done on the assembly line.

Still one has to assume that the tanks sent to England were ear marked for modification before they went out the door over here.

I know something about assembling tanks and making them.