M4 Firefly?

[StokesAk]

Why is it 20 perks when the gun on it sucks and it can get 1 hit by any tank from any angle?

The new M4A3(76)W is better that thing should have more of a perk.

[Soulyss]

Don't have the details in front of me, but if memory serves that 17lb gun on the Firefly is superior to the 76mm on M4A3(76)

*edit*
I was able to jump in game real quick and check the numbers,

The Firefly fires at 2900 ft/sec and can penetrate 178mm of armor at muzzle velocity and 0 degrees.  The Sherman 76mm comes in at 2600 ft/sec and 134mm.

[whiteman]

are we sure the guns sucks and not some ones aim? I can sit out there and bounce shells off for hours and it's not the guns fault.

[waystin2]

I will take a Firefly in a stand up fight anyday.  The 17lber just hits a heck of a lot harder than the 76mm.

[Soulyss]

Don't have the details in front of me, but if memory serves that 17lb gun on the Firefly is superior to the 76mm on M4A3(76)

*edit*
I was able to jump in game real quick and check the numbers,

The Firefly fires at 2900 ft/sec and can penetrate 178mm of armor at muzzle velocity and 0 degrees.  The Sherman 76mm comes in at 2600 ft/sec and 134mm.

Just some more info... too much time has elapsed and I couldn't edit my original post further.  I also looked at the Tiger's 88mm and the projectile weights.

Tank	Projectile Weight	Muzzle Velocity	Maximum Armor Penetration
M4 Firefly	17lbs	2900 ft/sec	178mm
M4A3(76)	15.4lbs	2600 ft/sec	134mm
Tiger I	22.5lbs	2536 ft/sec	154mm

[Nemisis]

Stokes, the M4A4 (what the firefly was converted from IIRC) didn't have the wet storage. It was more prone to lighting up than the M4A3(76)W was.

And the 17lber is a great gun. Its even better than the tiger's at short-med range (of course the Tiger's gun is already overkill). At long range, the '88 out preforms the 17lber because it has more mas to maintain its kenetic energy.

[Ack-Ack]

Stokes, the M4A4 (what the firefly was converted from IIRC) didn't have the wet storage. It was more prone to lighting up than the M4A3(76)W was.

The Firefly was converted from any type that would fit the 17 pounder (M4, M4 Hybrid, M4A3 and M4A4) while the M4A1, M4A2 and M4A6 were found to be completely unsuitable for use with the 17 pounder.  Depending on which variant was used and whether or not that variant delivered to the British was produced with the dry or wet stowage dictated whether or not that Firefly had wet stowage or not.  For example, if the Brits received some M4A4s or M4A3s that had dry stowage then that's how that Firefly was, if the tanks were delivered with wet stowage hulls, then that's what that Firefly had.


ack-ack

[SmokinLoon]

The Sherman VC "Firefly" has the same hull as the M4A3's, but it has a much harder hitting gun albeit a slower reload.  In a long range fight, only the Tiger can trump it and that is because mainly the Tiger has the armor to absorb some of the damage with the Firefly does not. 

The firefly is truly a beast and should not be used for anything other than a long range tank battle.   

[321BAR]

The firefly is truly a beast and should not be used for anything other than a long range tank battle.   

its what it was made for... although they are perfect to replace that 76mm and the pnzr's 75mm in close too. Just dont get DR7 in one

[Guppy35]

The Firefly was converted from any type that would fit the 17 pounder (M4, M4 Hybrid, M4A3 and M4A4) while the M4A1, M4A2 and M4A6 were found to be completely unsuitable for use with the 17 pounder.  Depending on which variant was used and whether or not that variant delivered to the British was produced with the dry or wet stowage dictated whether or not that Firefly had wet stowage or not.  For example, if the Brits received some M4A4s or M4A3s that had dry stowage then that's how that Firefly was, if the tanks were delivered with wet stowage hulls, then that's what that Firefly had.


ack-ack

For what it's worth,  Mark Hayward's book on the Sherman Firefly, which is very good, says that despite some claims to the contrary, only M4, M4 Hybrids and M4A4s were converted to carry the 17 pounder.  No M4A3s were converted as the British only got seven total M4A3.

[Ack-Ack]

For what it's worth,  Mark Hayward's book on the Sherman Firefly, which is very good, says that despite some claims to the contrary, only M4, M4 Hybrids and M4A4s were converted to carry the 17 pounder.  No M4A3s were converted as the British only got seven total M4A3.

When I was searching around looking at different tank model kits, I stumbed onto this one that was a model of a US M4A3 Firefly, was going to dismiss it as a "what if" tank until I saw the name of the builder and read the captions.

US Army M4A3 (17 pdr) Firefly by Steven J. Zaloga


I know some don't think highly of Zaloga (I've found his information to be accurate) so I started to see if I could find out more on the US M4A3 Firefly and found this site.  It's interesting you mention Hayward because it wasn't until I just finished reading the site again a few minutes ago did I realize where I saw that name.  It's his site correcting his work in his book.

SHERMAN M4 AND M4A3 17 POUNDER IN US SERVICE. NEW INFORMATION


ack-ack

[Guppy35]

Nice catch AKAK

The book is still a worthwhile addition with lots of photos and detail drawings.  I have Zaloga's early Osprey book on the Sherman.  His name is a familiar one.

Thanks for the link to Hayward's site too!

Interesting to note that the US conversions never saw combat.  Wonder if any are rusting away somewhere in the US. 

I have a half started Dragon 1/35th scale Firefly that's been sitting waiting to get finished for the last dozen years or so.  Got the turret done but this computer flying stuff always seemed to drag me away

[Ack-Ack]

Interesting to note that the US conversions never saw combat.  Wonder if any are rusting away somewhere in the US. 

Despite the fact the US Firefly never saw combat or operational service that I know of, how many do you think will ask that it get added?

ack-ack

[Nemisis]

Anyone know why U.S. fireflys never saw combat? I mean if you got them, you might as well use them.

[GtoRA2]

When I was searching around looking at different tank model kits, I stumbed onto this one that was a model of a US M4A3 Firefly, was going to dismiss it as a "what if" tank until I saw the name of the builder and read the captions.

US Army M4A3 (17 pdr) Firefly by Steven J. Zaloga


I know some don't think highly of Zaloga (I've found his information to be accurate) so I started to see if I could find out more on the US M4A3 Firefly and found this site.  It's interesting you mention Hayward because it wasn't until I just finished reading the site again a few minutes ago did I realize where I saw that name.  It's his site correcting his work in his book.

SHERMAN M4 AND M4A3 17 POUNDER IN US SERVICE. NEW INFORMATION


ack-ack

Who doesnt like Zaloga?