Morning Folks:
Last night I saw a show on the History channel, i.e. Modern Marvels..Talking about The Sherman Tank in the Battle for France..In which they gave a description for the Firefly..I was under the impression that it was called that because it used a Flamethrower as it's primary weapon. HOWEVER on the program they gave it as having a 17 pounder Gun..Which is the correct answer ??
Thanks
DAGGER-1

Dagger,
The name "Firefly" was given to the British modified Sherman. this tank carried a 17 pound gun. (approx 76mm). IIRC the British version of the M4A3 was the "IIC" And the M4A4 was the "VC". Any Shermanaholics out there with more info?

The Sherman Firefly was a British version of the Sherman upgunned with a 17pdr gun.

The turret was modified, in having an extension on the back to provide clearence for the gun recoil.

The 17 pdr gun was aslo fitted to the British versions of the M10 called A10 Achillies.

There were however flamethrower variants on the Sherman aminly used by the US (I think), the British tended to the Churchill Crocadile.

I don't know if anyone else can shed some light on this topic??

All Da Bezt

Crom

Well I guess that answers that question, I appreciate it. I was hoping that the program that I saw WAS CORRECT, And apparently it was. So Thanks guys. I was amazed at the number of Loss and captured in tha Falize pocket for a total of 60,000 men. Thats ALOT... 50,000 Killed 10,000 Captured. Almost to the point of being shocking. NOT with standing that were the tables reversed I am sure that the Germans would have wanted to inflict just as high if not higher numbers on us and the Brit's, If they could have. Still I felt sorry for them
especially those common soldiers who were simply trying to do thier duty...Anyway thanks again for the correction.

DAGGER-1

Yeah I saw that show to it was prety cool. We beat the germans cause of man power.
After seeing that show I know what my next models gonna be Yep U guessed it a sherman firefly LOL #:-)

I've become something of a Firefly nut, fellas, so let me add some more to this. Not every type of Sherman was modified. Only certain dry-stowage types were modified; the M4A4 (Firefly Vc), M4 rolled plate hull (Firefly Ic), and cast front/rolled plate M4 (Firefly IHc, "H" for Hybrid hull).

No diesel M4A2 models were converted, nor were M4A3 models save for a test example in the US. Also, no M4A1 cast hull tanks were converted. There is some confusion in photos over this, as many have been mis-identified as "Sherman IIC Fireflies". Didn't exist.

The turret extension was welded of 2" armor plate and housed the radios, so the original radio space could be taken up by the recoiling gun. Needless to say it was very cramped in there.

The gun was actually 76.2mm, and clearly the best anti-tank gun the Allies possessed.

If you like Fireflies you MUST get a copy of Mark Hayward's book from Barbarossa Books in England. I waited five months for mine, ordering before it was published. Well worth the $57 including postage.

Greg

Thank you, Greg. I knew someone would have the right information. I was relying on my memory with my earlier post. I have been accused of using "faulty equipment" when use my memory.....LOL

There was a thread about American Fireflies a while back; a discussion about the existance of them... searching the forums.... American Fireflies



YodaMan

sas is over here tonight.....I showed him this thread and he hauled out a book....British & American Tanks of WWII...by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis......on pg. 131 it has a picture of and M4A3 and they call it a IVC....rearmed in Britain with the 17 pdr.
Also on the same pg there is a picture of an M4A1 and yes it is an M4A1 with the 17 pdr. titled Sherman IIC also rearmed in Britain.
They also show the IC and the VC.
I'm not a Firefly expert by any means but these pictures are in this book. Check it out.

Greg,

You mention no cast hull Fireflys, but I have a clear picture of a cast hull sherman mounting the british 17pdr gun, with British markings.

The description says it's a Detriot cast Hull.

Could you clarfiy please.

Cheers,

Cromwell

Greg,

You mention no cast hull Fireflys, but I have a clear picture of a cast hull sherman mounting the british 17pdr gun, with British markings.

The description says it's a Detriot cast Hull.

Could you clarfiy please. I'm sure this picture is in the Chamberlian and Doyle book (Picture of an M3 Grant on the front(

Cheers,

Cromwell

Look again at the photo of the M4A1 (photo 334) -- that's a 76mm gun, not a 17 pounder.
The Firefly in photo 346 is a composite hull (cast front, 2/3 welded hull) M4.

Also, I'm not convinced that the Sherm in photo 345 is an M4A3 -- it could also be an M4 -- it's pretty much impossible to tell from the angle of the photo.

I don't have the reference cited by Sgt. Cromwell, but it is noted in Hayward's book that frequently Hybrid hull fireflies are mis-identified as M4A1s. The reason none of the M4A1 series were converted is unclear, but it may have to do with problems relocating various items when the ammo box was place in the assistant driver position. In any event, the British ordnance folks themselves ruled out conversions of the Sherman II M4A1 series.

With respect to the M4A3 the British only ever received 7 of this variant for test purposes. No sense engineering a conversion on those numbers. The only known M4A3 Firefly was a postwar US conversion shown in the Hayward book, and no one knows if it was merely a turret mock-up or an attempt at engineering a full conversion as it is a late wet-stowage hull. Certainly only EARLY M4A3 dry-stowage vehicles would have been considered suitable by the British had they had any. Apparently the changes in ammo stowage brought about by the wet-stowage system were incompatible with the large 17-pdr rounds. Even the 80 Fireflies apparently built for the US 1st Army in the spring of '45 were based on M4 hulls. Forty of these were delivered prior to the end of the fighting, but none was apparently issued to a combat unit.

Greg

Greg,

Maybe your right, but I know what I saw.................A cast hull, and a big long gun (about the length of a 17pdr) with a mzzule excactly the same as a 17pdr.

Maybe the description in the book is wrong.............I dunno.

I'll try and scan it in, in a week or so (don't have a scanner myself, but my Mum does. )

Maybe this will help this discussion.

Regards,

In reguards to the Firefly situation the War Department included Shermans m4a1 and m4a3 because of shortages of Fireflys to go around, one Firefly to a troop, thus the fact that
if Shermans where shipped from the US and Fireflys were needed badly any sherman will do in a pinch and was more than likely used,however complicated the conversion was. Why else would a Sherman IIC Firefly m4a1 and Sherman IVC Firefly m4a3 be included in the stats! If there is one thing I`ve learned in all of my years of modeling and studying photographs ( 30yrs plus) and that is if you happen to wonder about the usage of a certain vehicle in a certain role in a certain situation, chances are they more than likely built it and used it in wwII.
russ

NOW did I start a Firestorm OR WHAT ?? Nice to see that thier is a great interest in this Tank. Personaly, I think it was Okay. BUT am a Bigger fan of the German Tiger Tank !!
SORRY FELLAS...

DAGGER-1

Sorry to disappoint you, sas, but "any Sherman will do in a pinch" wasn't the way that it worked out. Reread the posts above. All the Firefly conversions were done in British ordnance shops; none by the US. The Brits themselve have documented quite clearly that certain marks of Sherman were unsuitable for conversion. They don't state the reasons, leaving us to speculate, but any variant deemed unsuitable was not converted. At least not officially.

The M4A1 was declared unsuitable, and the confusion rests with inaccurately identified photographs and war diary entries composed after the fact by individuals probably not familiar with the vehicles themselves. I'm more inclined to believe what the British ordnance shops record as being converted than the war diary entry of a combat unit. Most troops didn't really know or care which variant they were using, so long as it kept them alive as long as possible.

These vehicles were built in three batches in early, mid, and late '44. Only dry-stowage tanks could be used, and not all of those were suitable. The M4A2, for example, was not widely available in the UK and that was probably amongst the resons for not converting those. That, and by the time the Firfly project got started 75mm M4A2 production was winding down and new ones were not being shipped to the UK. The M4 and M4A4 were available in some quantity. Most of the early vehicles were Vc conversions, and the middle batch contained both Ic and Vc tanks in quantity. This is because substantial numbers of both of these vehicles arrived in the UK in the fall of '44 following rebuild in the US. These were tanks issued to training units stateside and sent back to the factory to be remanufactured and upgraded. The middle and last batches also include the IHc Hybrid hull vehicles straight from new production in the US.

Bottom line, no such thing as a Sherman IIc or IVc officially produced and documented.

The only thing more difficult to sort out with Shermans is the Israeli variants

Greg

look at the photos very carefully as a lot of "ordinary" shermans had a drainpipe slipped over the barrel to confuse the germans as to which were the real fireflys as there was only one per squadron at the anti-tank gunners were told to target them first

Well...that's a new one on me if it's true.....I was told by Firefly crewmen that they did anything they could NOT to look like a firefly....why would a 75mm Sherman open himself up to be a target be trying to look like a firefly??? This doesn't make any sense to me at all....I'd have to see pictures or talk to someone who actually did this foolhardy thing and lived to tell about it!!!

Well, this morning I recieved a very nice message from Historian David Fletcher of the Bovington Tank Museum, on the usage of m4a1s and m4a3s as Fireflys acording to
Chamberlain and Ellis` book. He politely said, the information in that book is old reference
and is wrong. The m4a1 was not converted because of many technical problems and the
m4a3 , because it was the US mainstay was not even considered! Mr. Fletcher also reiterated Greg`s mention of Hayward`s book, best reference on the market today.
So I stand before my modelling coleagues eating crow! Greg , your information is quite correct, well done!
I should also like to thank Mr. David Fletcher of Bovington Tank Museum for responding to my enquiries!
' I won`t be dining out tonight, dear, I`ll be eating crow for dinner'!
russ aka sas

Cast hull Firefly?

On p. 131 of Chamberlain & Ellis, picture 346, is a Hybrid Firefly Ic. It's a partially cast, partially welded later hull design. Their usage as Firefly conversions is well documented. What is in question is whether or not any M4A1 cast hulls were used. Evidence seems to point against it.

Don't eat too much crow, Russ. I've been getting seriously interested in the Sherman family and its variants for about a year now, and the permutations and variations of this vehicle are nearly endless. Nearly, but for a few variants like Firefly the recent scholarship has really clarified matters as to what was and wasn't done and why. Indeed, althougth there were three types of Firefly and much variation in stowage and such there was actually LESS variation in some aspects relative to other members of the family. For example, the suspension. Virtually all Vc and Ic tanks had the straight return roller arm brackets with the final type of track skid. Some of the Hybrids had the final upswept-arm assemblies. None of these vehicles ever had any of the earlier, interim suspension and track skid varieties because of the narrow time frame in which they were manufactured.

The rest of the M4 family saw much greater variation, depending on when the tank was built and whether or not it ever went back to the factory for reconditioning, or was officially field-modified, or UNOFFICIALLY field-modified. Getting the right set of characteristics for, say, an M4A3 in Tunisia in March 1943 is actually harder than researching the Firefly. You need to determine which unit had them, when they took delivery, and so on to get an idea of when the tanks came off the line. From that you make a call about what components were being included in the build during that time frame, etc....

And as I mentioned before, just when you think you have a handle on all this then you have to consider the Israeli variants.....


Greg

So Greg, what about the UNOFFICIALLY field modified shermans being pieced back to gether, any photographic evidence of field mechanics taking a perfect Firefly turret and mounting it on whatevers at hand, say a m4a3?? Stranger things have been done!
( Quad 50 on a Stuart )!
russ

Negative on the M4A3, Russ. See, the key thing is that this was a British deal. And they received a total of SEVEN A3 tanks total--all for test purposes, really, and they never left the UK. So there would not have been any tanks available to make the conversion. We (the US) didn't use Fireflies, and we had all the A3 variants.

No photographic evidence to support this, but it is possible that an M4A2 could have been kitbashed in the field. At least a dry-stowage A2, that is.

Another possibility , also not supported by photos, is along the following lines: A postwar Fiefly Vc converted either to Radial power like the M4/M4A1, Ford GAA V8 like the M4A3, or even twin GM diesels like the M4A2. The French, for example, standardized on the radial and retrofitted their M4A4 tanks with it. So it's possible. The Italians got a few Fireflies for sure, but I don't know about engine swaps. The Egyptians got no Fireflies, but liked the diesels so they converted their 75mm M4A4 tanks to the M4A2 power plant. In all these cases the engine deck would need to be changed to match the desired engine, and the rear plate and exhaust area modified as well. Certainly it would make for a fun what-if scratchbuilding project, as would a conversion to HVSS suspension. That last one actually DID happen in Israeli service, but they too never had Fireflies. Hardly needed them, really after developing first the M50 and then the M51.

Greg