Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

Feel free to discuss anything and everything to do with tanking here!
RobW
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 1169
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2014 2:55 pm
Location: Sheffield

Re: Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

Post by RobW »

Thanks, I may leave for now as it'll give me too many (more) ideas for builds....
User avatar
B_Man
Corporal
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:23 pm
Location: Yass, NSW, Australia

Re: Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

Post by B_Man »

jarndice wrote:It does make it even harder to understand why the American Army were not interested in a relatively easy conversion of an M4 into the "Firefly" and instead waited for their own tank destroyer to be produced..
Shaun.
I don't think the Firefly was all sunshine and lollipops. There is a very good episode of The Chieftains Hatch on YouTube where he demonstrates just how cramped it was inside a Firefly turret and how awkward it was to crew and maintain. It was very good against other tanks but not very good at all the other things tanks are used for. The amour was no better than a regular Sherman and it was a bit slower so the Americans probably decided they were better off sticking with existing tank destroyers.
User avatar
Raminator
Warrant Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 1267
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 9:57 am
Location: Newcastle, Australia

Re: Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

Post by Raminator »

If the US Army were so unhappy with the 76 mm Sherman's ergonomics that they delayed its introduction for nearly two years to redevelop it into something usable by the crew, it's no wonder they rejected Firefly outright. Not to mention the additional logistical strain of a new ammunition type (manufactured by another country!) that the 17 pdr would have necessitated.
User avatar
43rdRecceReg
Major
Posts: 6294
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 11:38 am
Location: North West Highlands, Scotland

Re: Tanks-100 years of Armoured warfare

Post by 43rdRecceReg »

Raminator wrote:If the US Army were so unhappy with the 76 mm Sherman's ergonomics that they delayed its introduction for nearly two years to redevelop it into something usable by the crew, it's no wonder they rejected Firefly outright. Not to mention the additional logistical strain of a new ammunition type (manufactured by another country!) that the 17 pdr would have necessitated.
The research and field trials had been done, Dan, by British Boffins from 1942 onwards. The Americans were privy to that body of work, as they were to our Radar, and Jet Engine technology..but economics aside, I think they just didn't want a British gun in an American tank. As for limited space, I believe it was better to be a person of diminished stature, or a contortionist, as much in 76mm equipped turrets, as it was in the Firefly. On the face of it, though..cramped or not, it was probably better to be huddles up, and able to knock out a Tiger, than to end up medium rare :lolno: :haha:
"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please"- Mark Twain.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”