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?

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

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.

Quoted Text

---

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

---

The Firefly Turrets were converted in the UK and not manufactured in the US so this is more than likely a HB turret with a Loaders hatch, does your photo have a cutout in the bustle and a Radio box installed? Can you indicate the name of the book please.


As to the original I thought that this had been laid to bed many years ago and the whole vehicle was resprayed. I am pretty sure that Shane Lovell unearthed the Instructions covering this one and posted it on ML many years ago.

Al

Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary

Quoted Text

---

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.

---

The purpose of primer is to PREVENT rust so that your "ball of rust" would not happen. I suspect that you might be wrong about either the location of the photo of the Firefly turret, or in the identification of it, as conversion work was done at Vickers (according to some sources).

Quoted Text

---

Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary

---

look on page 50, and then look directly under the word "Ingersol" on the machine column. It's with the turret mounted on the backside of the fixture.

Never felt I was ever anykind of a Sherman expert, or anything like that. Just always trying to learn. This is a real shame as about ten years ago I had access to TACOM's fish tape, and believe me the data was in there.

So to answer the issue with a simple question. "Why did they machine a large rectangle opening in the back of a turret?"
gary

Wasn't all the conversion work done in England?

M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD. I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources.

Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)?

Idea for Firefly Model

Hey guys, I think it would be really cool looking to model a Firefly with different color on the unmodified, US parts. It's good enough of a premise for a "what if" model so even if it isn't realistic I'm going to do it anyway 'cause the color contrast will be neat.

What do you guys think?

This is a supposition on your part, unsupported by documentation and the realities of the conversion process, and contradicted by existing photographs. (Vehicles from the US were covered with shipping markings, preservation warnings, sealing compounds, and in the case of remanufactured vehicles, vice factory new, US stars and registration numbers. Fireflies do not have these present.) Thus, to ask

Quoted Text

---

Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)?

---

is ridiculous as there is no fact to confirm as correct. (You know, "verify".)

Why not phrase it correctly from the start:

Quoted Text

---

Quoted Text

---

Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary

---

look on page 50, and then look directly under the word "Ingersol" on the machine column. It's with the turret mounted on the backside of the fixture.

Never felt I was ever anykind of a Sherman expert, or anything like that. Just always trying to learn. This is a real shame as about ten years ago I had access to TACOM's fish tape, and believe me the data was in there.

So to answer the issue with a simple question. "Why did they machine a large rectangle opening in the back of a turret?"
gary

---

Gary

That is actually the front of a turret and the opening for the main gun that you can see.
If you look at the turret in the middle of the photo, you will notice a small notch machined out by the casting number (between the machinist's hands). You can see the same notch on the turret you are referring to.
You've simply misenterpreted the photo I'm afraid. Sorry.

Gary

What exactly is your point on this? That M4's arriving in England (for Firefly conversion) arrived unpainted? Or are you just bashing me because you think you speak better English than I?

If you read to the bottom of my OP, I said "If so", and "can anyone verify". Both questions to my preceding statements. Please leave any grammatical faux pas to the proper authorities! And I do not understand why you are going on about specific markings - stars, registrations nos., shipping labels, etc., as I was inquiring about COLOR. A simple, "No, I'm sure they were all completely repainted after conversion", would have sufficed.

Your choice of "verify" has nothing to do with grammar. I'm sure verify, or confirm, or validate, or prove, or something similar is exactly what you meant as your first statement was written as a fact or nearly so.
KL

I don't follow the guys who come up with some idea for a cool subject then troll about for justification.

KL

Maybe you should re-think your use or concept of the word "troll"? Unwarrented use is very troll-like! Or could you mean "trawling"?

I see where I screwed up, so accept my apologies. What convinced me was looking at the front turret and seeing the antenna pot (located at the rear of course). I combined the two in my mind. Could go deeper, but will leave it alone.
gary