Sherman Firefly

[LiquidSky]

Hmm..maybe it is just me, but I can't seem to find the Sherman Firefly in the production list.

And yes, I have the Production Filter off so I can see future stuff.

I am playing the '43 campaign.

Perhaps it is not a production per se, but an 'export' from the US. Even so, I thought it would be in the list.

Ah well..I am not at the date they would have been introduced so I can wait and see.


EDIT: Ahhh..nevermind...I found it with the editor...its in the game as a Hvy Cavalry Tank.

All is good.

Unless you are axis.

[LiquidSky]

Since this topic is rather useless, I feel that I should make amends by discussing my favourite western allied unit.

It's the French mountain battalions.

Man I love those pieces. Too bad they are probably going to get removed after people figure out what I am doing with them.

[micheljq]

Those french mountain battalions must be what the french called the goumiers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Goumier

Maroccan, algerian mountain troops, accustomed to the Atlas mountains for the maroccans, in algerian mountains for the algerians, commanded by french officers. They pierced the Gustav line.

For the sherman Firefly maybe look for Sherman V/M4A4, or 17 pounder Sherman i don't know. It was british, the canadians used it also. There must be another name.

Michel.

[Devonport]

For the Firefly (there are two versions listed) go to the Production screen (hotkey p), scroll down to Ground and it is listed in the CW (Commonwealth) section.

[decourcy2]

Also the firefly is not produced, it is converted from Shermans, so you will see no production.

Firefly is the sweetest tank in the 'verse.

[LiquidSky]

My French North African troops are once again taking important ground in Italy...they can't be stopped! I love these guys. I can't wait to use them against Pelton.

[Harrybanana]

Americans are rightly recognized for their ingenuity, but in WWII I the Brtish and Canadians often surpassed them. Recognizing that their tanks were badly outgunned British engineers found that if they turned a 17" anti-tank gun barrel on it's side they could fit it into a Sherman, thus the Firefly was born. It could match the Panther in firepower but not armour.

In Normandy the Canadian Army saw the need for armoured personnel carriers. So they took the guns out of priests (which they than called "defrocked priests") and used them in this role with some success. I'm not aware of any other army doing this previously, but I could be wrong.

I've never understood why the Western Allies never recognized the need to develop and produce heavy tanks and armoured personnel carriers in large numbers.

[HMSWarspite]

The western Allies did recognise the role and need for a heavy tank = the M26 Pershing and the Centurion were both under development before the end of the war. They just arrived too late to make a difference (or take part at all). It was a question of priority. But the Allies never needed heavy tanks in large numbers. This is the standard myth of the German 'cats'. German heavy tank production was peanuts: 1400 Tiger 1, 600 Tiger II and 6500 Panthers (total) does not create a huge issue, and the philosophy of US army (at least) was that their main tank (M4 varients) was not there to kill heavy tanks. The occasions where German heavy tanks held up and caused issues for WA tank units are all (pretty much) documented to death. The thousands of occasions where tanks engaged without a Cat in sight are rather less so. It is like German accounts of the Battle of Britain. 2/3 of the RAF fighters were that lesser known mark of Spitfire called the Hurricane!

The issue with Allied tanks is one of not having a better 75mm gun until the 76mm/special ammo came along, not medium vs heavy...

Also, the WA had huge numbers of APCs - they were called half tracks. The Defrocked Priests (or the Ram Kangeroo) were improvisations for specific purposes. All were open topped and hence only the 'half track' vs 'full track' issue makes much difference. No one had fully tracked (enclosed) APCs until much later (M13/FV432 for example).

[stuart3]

I have recently read Robert Kershaw's book "Tank Men" which covers some of the issues raised.

The short answer to most of the "why didn't they do what now seems sensible?" questions is usually "because of personal or financial politics or ingrained culture."

Britain's re-armament drive in the last couple of years of peace focused on the RAF at the expense of the tank corps. The result was that we got the Hurricane and Spitfire just about in time, but our cruiser tanks in particular were poorly designed and built. When we needed more and better tanks the answer was to buy most of them from America.

The Americans designed and mass produced better tanks, so why didn't they build bigger ones with bigger guns? Back to politics for the answer.

American tank design and production was controlled by Army Ground Forces, headed by Major-General Lesley McNair, who believed that tanks should be designed to exploit breakouts and that enemy tanks should be engaged and defeated by tank-destroyers. McNair had the clout to impose his vision on America's tank production and policy over all opposition. The Pershing could have been produced earlier and in greater numbers, but that ran counter to McNair's philosophy.

It's easy to criticise people like McNair, but these guys had no historical modern tank vs modern tank experience to base their theories on, and he does get a lot of credit for mass production of the the Sherman.

[IslandInland]

Also the firefly is not produced, it is converted from Shermans, so you will see no production.

Firefly is the sweetest tank in the 'verse.

I see what you did there. Shiny! [:)]

My French North African troops are once again taking important ground in Italy...they can't be stopped! I love these guys. I can't wait to use them against Pelton.

They were used to take Monte Cassino with terrible consequences for the local population:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marocchinate

Americans are rightly recognized for their ingenuity, but in WWII I the Brtish and Canadians often surpassed them. Recognizing that their tanks were badly outgunned British engineers found that if they turned a 17" anti-tank gun barrel on it's side they could fit it into a Sherman, thus the Firefly was born. It could match the Panther in firepower but not armour.

In Normandy the Canadian Army saw the need for armoured personnel carriers. So they took the guns out of priests (which they than called "defrocked priests") and used them in this role with some success. I'm not aware of any other army doing this previously, but I could be wrong.

I've never understood why the Western Allies never recognized the need to develop and produce heavy tanks and armoured personnel carriers in large numbers.

Also Hobart's Funnies are another example of British/Canadian improvisation.

[micheljq]

The british had the comet tank too who saw some action at the end of WW2, with a 77mm gun. Maybe another reason the western allies did not focus that much on heavy tank was because they had air superiority and could bombard the german tanks.

The U.S. had the bazooka and the airborne were using the recoiless rifle for anti-tank. The british and canadian had the PIAT A-T rifle.

Michel.

[mariandavid]

It was the brief experience in North Africa with new generation German tanks that gave the CW the edge in tank guns: Not so much in Africa but because in the next few months the captured Tiger made it clear that the chosen 75mm would be totally inadequate. The result was the Firefly and Challenger for the cruiser tank units and the M10 with 17pdr for the infantry tank units (this when it became clear that the idea of mixing 6pdr and 75mm variants in the Churchill brigades would not be enough). The Comet also had the 17pdr but de-rated to avoid additional design changes from the Cromwell.

What I do not understand is why the US did not draw the same conclusions - since they were given full access to the Tiger evaluation and conclusions.

[KWG]

Mountain troops are the best for Italy. I Send mobile units to the Russian front and send mountain troops to Italy. 5thSS Mountain Corps has a superb commander in Gille.

Tanks will always be important on the field but latter ww2 saw it suffer as the mounted armored knight did - Crossbows. Cheaper mass produced AT infantry weapons, shell technology, tank hunters and tank destroyers. Plus air power. Everyone wanted a shot at the tank. The US believed along the lines of, as Stalin is supposed to have said, "Quantity has a quality all its own " therefore no big rush for larger guns. A US Infantry Division can field as much armor as a German Panzer Division. My 2nd Armor has 541 armor, not the best models but good for a 'bum rush'. There were lots of US Tank Destroyer units "SEEK STRIKE DESTROY" Ive been reading about them as Ive been making the Tank Destroyer units' crests, lots of esprit de corps.

Its Oct.'44 and I have 910 M36 90mm GMC built and in pool, but none in units.