I just gone done reading the Osprey New Vanguard book on the M4 (76mm) Sherman On page 34,lower righthand corner is a picture of what appears to be a U.S. Firefly Sherman It looks like it's an M4 hull with the applique armor and the bow m.g. It also has a dozer blade
The pic isn't the best quality,but to me I can plainly see the rounded muzzle brake of the 17lber
The TC also happens to be wearing a U.S. style helmet The caption says it belongs to the 3rd armored division The caption also states that 80 M4 and M4A3's were armed with the 17lber but did not see any combat service
If this caption and pic are true,not that I doubt it, we finally have some proof on the existence of that type which saw service (post war anyway) with the U.S. Anybody else have this book?

Hey Zod -

Yea - I have that book as well... It certainly does look like a US Firefly...

Of course - I am NOT a sherman expert by any means :-)

Later-
Jeff

If it' a 17 pdr then it shouldn't have the bow MG, there wouldn't be any room for ammunition would there?

Vinnie

I don't know much about the Fireflies the U.S. tested, but I have seen evidence they existed. There used to be a good Firefly site on the web that had pics, but it is down now -- wish I had downloaded some info.




They might have had different stowage on the U.S. tanks -- for those who may not know, the reason the hull MG was blocked on the British version was because they stowed ammo in that position. It wouldn't surprise me if the U.S. specs called for sacrificing ammo for an assistant driver and hull MG.

I'd like to see this pic, as I don't have the book.

According to "The Encyclopedia of British & American Tanks of WW2" by Chamberlain & Ellis ( my 'bible'); the Americans did trial the Firefly, but decided in favour of the 76mm.

Here is the picture in question :-)



Sorry about the grainy image.. the pic in the book is the same way. You can see it does have a bow mg though..

Jeff

Jimminy -- it even has a dozer blade!

I wonder if this is really a U.S. tank, though. Could be Canadian?

The same pic a little larger though nothing that signifies a definitive U.S. tank other than possibly the commander's helmet.

If it is a firefly, it must be field modified. The turret appears to be missing the hatch for the loader and, more importantly, there is no external radio box. If the radio is still in the turret, that has got to be one cramped space.
For information on fireflies, including those converted for US use, check out these links:
http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/home1.htm
This is Mark Hayward's website and he has several documents from Steven Zaloga dealing with fireflies converted for the US using, among others, M4A3 hulls, including HVSS. Some really interesting stuff here.

edit: Man, this post has had more work done on it than Pamela Anderson. Hope it was worth it.

Since it is a dozer perhaps some engineer unit they installed a dummy gun?

That barrel does not look long enough to be a 17 pdr. Anyway it can't be, as WarMachine says the extended radio box at the back of the turret is missing so there isn't enough room fro the recoil. It looks like a 76mm fitted with a muzzle brake?

Vinnie

I agree, Vinnie -- that barrel doesn't look long enough to be a 17-pounder. It looks like a standard 75mm M4 to me, except for the thing that appears to be a muzzle brake.

After Ken re-posted a clearer version of the pic, I started thinking that this might be some sort of optical illusion. What we are all assuming is a muzzle brake on a 17-pounder may actually be something on the M4's hull -- the antenna pot next to the asst. driver's hatch -- it is simply lined up with the end of the gun muzzle in the photo.

i agree with hollowpoint,

that to me looks like a 75mm barrel, and the antenae pot on the front hull.

the barrel would be about twice that length if it was a 17-pdr

cheers

joe

Well it looks like we're all agreed that it's not a 17pdr. Why do you say a 75mm? Many 76mm were fitted with muzzle breaks, and not many fitted with antennae pots on the front hull?

Vinnie

First off, it's too short to be a 76mm, but the real clues are in the hull. The hull is a small-hatch, dry-ammo-stowage hull -- I think it's an M4. You can see the small hatches in front, plus the applique armor on the side confirms it to be dry-stowage. This hull would have an antenna pot on the left front (facing the tank).

The turret's also wrong for a 76mm. It's a low-bustle without a loader's hatch. It's hard to tell from the pic, but it might not even have a pistol port.

Looking at that pic again It does look like a dummy gun? I just wonder if the dozer tanks had them on there But that muzzle brake looking thing does look like the 17lber version The one 76mm ones were oval shaple like the ones on the Panzer IV ausf G,H and J

I take your point. Still doesn't look right for an antennae pot though, the 'shadow' doesn't fall right?

Vinnie

Chad:

That's an interesting theory, but I'm not sure why anyone would want to pretend to be a Firefly -- seems like it would draw fire.

maybe its something simple like a canvas muzzle cover?

its certainly not a 17-pdr or a 76mm.

cheers

joe

I iike the antenna pot theory. It really does look like a 75mm with something in the background

Upon further review, including getting about an inch away from my monitor, I'm convinced that it's a 75mm sherman and the shade at the near edge of the front hull radio pot creating the illusion of a US firefly. When I looked really close, I'm positive I could see the muzzle of the 75mm cannon and not one of the baffles of a muzzle break. The radio pot isn't throwing off a shadow, but the near side is in the shade, which seems to be in line with how the light is hitting the rest of the tank. I doubt if the gun is a 76mm since the barrel doesn't look long enough, it's the wrong model of turret, mark of sherman, and the shape of the end of the barrel is wrong for a 76mm muzzle break, even with a dust cover.
Darn it, where are the CSI people when you need a real mystery solved?

I totally diagree with the radio pod theory: as you can see there is a shadow UNDERNEATH the bulge at the end of the muzzle. How could that be with something attached to the hull? Besides that, there is a antena on the bustle of the turret! OK, it is no muzzlebrak, I agree. The most logical thing would be a 75mm. gun with a (custom made?) dust cover. Maybe even one for a 76 m.. gun?

i think its the radio pot, and a 75mm barrel.

as has been said already its an M4, so the radio pot would definately be there, and its in just the right position in relation to the hull to be that.

the way the shadow falls, whilst appearing to be part of the barrel, could well be the radio pot, as it shows the correct curvature.

cheers

joe

No it doesn't.


Vinnie

OK, here's some more evidence to support the antenna pot theory. I was surfing a nice modeling site and came across a model I believe is almost exactly the same tank as in the original photo. Photos are close in lighting (note the shadows -- especially on the antenna pot) and angle.





If the images don't work, here's a link to the English website: http://www.panzer-modell.de/berichte/sherdozer/sherdozer_eng.htm

And the German (some photos are different): http://www.panzer-modell.de/berichte/sherdozer/sherdozer.htm