So, Sherman VC Firefly....

[Fencer51]

I must ask if the same scrutiny is going to be applied to the MkIV and the MkVI ?

I can find no pictures of them in the field with turrent mounted machine guns.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Edbert
^^^^^

What happens when O-Club class intardnet detectives arrive in the GDF for $500 Alex.

The average IQ gets raised by about 200 points

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Blooz
Bravo.



It is obvious through your diligent searching that there were a few .50's used by the British. Again, it was not common.

Nor was using Heavy bombers as dive bombers.
Yet we have it

[DREDIOCK]

Seems to me a good compromise would be to arm the Firefly with the 30 as some were later feild modified to carry one.

when going tank against tank the arguement is pretty insignificant.

A more important discussion would be one as to which version we are getting.
the Deisel powered or the Gas powered "Ronsons"

Where the difference could mean a disabled tank or a destroyed one by a single engine hit by even an M8

[Blooz]

I was curious about the Tiger tank having a machine gun at the commanders position too. It only took me one book to see it was a common weapon. It became more common as the war progressed as the allies gained air supremacy.

The Firefly came along after the allies had achieved air supremacy and the room on the vehicle for the weapon and the ammo was used to store more ammo for the 17 Pdr main gun. Also, Fireflys were deployed in about a one to five ratio to tank platoons (4 regular Shermans and one Firefly per platoon). The regular Shermans would have .50's on them anyway to defend against the event of an axis air attack.

Heck..they even took out the hull machine gun to make room too.

The Firefly has only one machine gun. It's .30 cal. and it is coaxial mounted on the left side of the main gun.

As I've said before. Some crews did mount extra weapons but the fact is that it was not common for the Firefly to mount the turret AA machine gun.

[DREDIOCK]

Ok Fine. But I still think the real question should be Deisel Vrs Gas.

Tank V Tank Machineguns are pretty useless cept to knock out a tread. But how often does anyone manage to do that before getting killed.

The Gas powered versions were called "Ronsons" for a reason.
One peice of hot metal and the whole thing went up

Whereas the deisel versions didnt burn so easily.

In the game its going to be the difference between being disabled by an engine shot or being blown to bits every time

[Bronk]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok Fine. But I still think the real question should be Deisel Vrs Gas.

Tank V Tank Machineguns are pretty useless cept to knock out a tread. But how often does anyone manage to do that before getting killed.

The Gas powered versions were called "Ronsons" for a reason.
One peice of hot metal and the whole thing went up

Whereas the deisel versions didnt burn so easily.

In the game its going to be the difference between being disabled by an engine shot or being blown to bits every time

IIRC
More likely due to ammo storage than gas powered.

Bronk

[hubsonfire]

There are a lot of things in AH that aren't the norm for WW2. What else would change if we were to get rid of everything that wasn't the most common variant or loadout?

[moot]

It'll be ironic to make it historical to the point of that MG being a .50, .30, or not there at all, and then have it suffer gamey Jeep exploits.

Anytime there is a choice between historical configurations, the most common one should be chosen, provided it's the one that best fits with the MA's gameplay... untill Combat Tour at least.
If we didn't get rid of the most common variants, there'd be thing such as BK5 sniping of bombers, and then you'd have bomber pilots making a stink of it.

[Blooz]

As for gas vs. diesel the diesel engine Shermans were M4A2's...not M4A4 (Firefly).

The diesel M4A2's, the few that were made, went to the Russians as their tanks (T34's and KV series tanks) were diesel too.




Now..as for the 'gameyness' of not having an AA gun.

Our T-34 doesn't have one and nobody seems to mind. It is modelled correctly.

All I'm pointing out and asking is that the Firefly, while still undeployed and easily changed, be fielded carrying the proper compliment of weaponry.

[hubsonfire]

Did the Tiger always have the upper MG? Did it usually have the upper, or only sometimes, or only rarely?

[john9001]

because the pintle gun could be mounted, it should be a option in the hanger. IE, do you want the 30-50- or none. Just like the ammo selection.

the reason you don't see many AA guns mounted is because at that stage of the war the threat of attack by German aircraft was small.


as far as gameplay goes, we need the 50 to keep the GV strafers at bay.

[moot]

It is strange we couldn't get that option.

[Willfly]

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
He didnt find a British firefely with a 50cal - he found an Argentine postwar firefly with a 50cal.  Heck just llok at the URL of his photo nad the site it points to...

That is not a british firefly nor does it have a M2HB Browning .50 Caliber, that is a Browning M1919A4, it is quite distinct in it's smaller size, and what appears to be a trigger grip on the rear of the weapon.

Just a little Info on the M2HB Browning .50 Cal, According to a book titled "Smallarms" the weapon is nothing more than a Browning .30cal rechambered for .50 Caliber rounds

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by john9001
because the pintle gun could be mounted, it should be a option in the hanger. IE, do you want the 30-50- or none. Just like the ammo selection.

the reason you don't see many AA guns mounted is because at that stage of the war the threat of attack by German aircraft was small.


as far as gameplay goes, we need the 50 to keep the GV strafers at bay.

Not that anyone cares, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable idea to me too.