Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Karnak on March 21, 2007, 05:00:59 PM
-
Looks like we are getting a very up gunned Sherman. Should be interesting to see how nasty guns and weakish armor does in the mud crawler's world.
-
Should keep tigers on there toes.
Bronk
-
Is there a good sight for info on the 17pounder? Did a quick google, but didn't see much other than Wiki or modelling sites.
-
closest thing I found so far today. still looking
http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/antitankguns/infantry_anti_tank_guns.htm
-
http://www.dyerlabs.com/guns_and_ammo/artillery.html
http://miniatures.de/html/pzgr/shelltypes.html
A.P.C.B.C. - Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped
An American shell type designed to improve accuracy, range, and penetration of the standard A.P.C. shell. In addition to the blunt armour-piercing cap, this shell had a second cap which was streamlined, and which improved the ballistic performance of the shell. The solid shot core punched through both caps on impact. Performance against homogeneous armour was greater than that of A.P. shells. US 76 mm L.53 anti-tank guns and tank destroyers equipped with A.P.C.B.C. shells had an increased chance of knocking out Tiger I and Panther tanks. It also enabled the British 17 Pdr. 76.2 mm L.60 to penetrate the frontal armour of the Königstiger at 500 metres.
-
this might have something interesting.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
It has pentration tables Tiger I vs other tanks.
I'd read more but I gotta get to the bowling alley.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I'd read more but I gotta get to the bowling alley.
lmbo
Looking at your avatar I can just picture it...
"What about you? You have anything else you'd rather be doing than marching up and down the square?"
"I've got to go bowling"
"Right then, off with ye!"
-
APCBC was only its regular AP ammo issue.
APDS (Armor Peircing Discarding Sabot) was a British designed tungsten core round issued to Firefly tanks for the 17 Pdr. It could do @220mm of armor at 2000 yards. Wether we see any for the AH version, who knows.
The US Army used HVAP (High Velocity Armor Peircing) in their 76mm armed Shermans (different gun, and not Firefly tanks), it was a form of APCR ammo, but not as good as APDS.
The US Army also developed a special HVAP shell for the 90mm gun on the Pershing tank later in the war.
In both cases, the ammo was issued in addition to regular APCBC, so they had both, with the special ammo being in more limited quantity. So you would have say, 6 rounds of APDS or HVAP (US 76 mm or British Firefly Sherman), then 30 rnds of APCBC, with HE and smoke as well.
HVAP was never issued to the British (or Canadian) armies in NW Europe and the US Army never used the British APDS in their tanks.
-
Bowling for Dollars???
insert interesting link here...
edit: wow you peeps are fast
<<< points at Krusty and others
-
"Well, yeah, man, you see, like, all the tanks we come up against are bigger and better than ours, so all we can hope to do is, like, scare 'em away, y'know. This gun is an ordinary 76mm but we add this piece of pipe onto it, and the Krauts think, like, maybe it's a 90mm. We got our own ammunition, it's filled with paint. When we fire it, it makes pretty pictures, scares the hell outta people! And we have a loudspeaker, when we go into battle we play music, very loud. It kind of... calms us down. "(http://www.battlefront.co.nz/Images/Briefings/Kellysheroes-03.jpg)
-
I love that movie
-
Whats the name of that movie, unfortunitly only saw it once.
i too enjoyed it,thank you.
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Whats the name of that movie, unfortunitly only saw it once.
i too enjoyed it,thank you.
Kelly's Heros, I believe.
-
Aaaaaa that movie was awesome so funny!:rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by BaDkaRmA158Th
Whats the name of that movie, unfortunitly only saw it once.
i too enjoyed it,thank you.
Kelly's Heros
-
I have it on DVD :)
The theme song is really catchy too, have that in my music folder
-
One gunner in a British Firefly got Michael Wittmann's Tiger and at least two other Tigers between Caen and Falaise.
It will at least be able to give the Tiger a run for it's money.
Sadly a regular short barrel 75 Sherman would be a hanger queen.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I have it on DVD :)
The theme song is really catchy too, have that in my music folder
Burning Bridges by the Mike Curb Congregation... Available on iTunes.
I saw Kelly's Heroes when it was first released (1970, I think). A buddy and I drove his '46 Chevy pickup to the local drive-in and backed in. We sat on lawn chairs in the truck bed. I don't I ever laughed that hard previously in my life. Great film.
(http://www.impawards.com/1970/posters/kellys_heroes.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Can someone tell me what the markings on the new Sherman refer to please?
I recently saw the movie "Is Paris Burning?" and the markings look like those on the French Shermans moving into Paris; I thought one even said "Belvedere". Were the Free French equipped with British Fireflys? Or is this a British marking?
-
The Sherman Firefly was used by the British and Canadian armies in the NW Europe campaign. The Polish Armored units, who were attached to Canadian Army command, were also issued it, in similar fashion.
"Belvedere" im almost positive is a British tank. I dont beleive the Free French ever used the Firefly, as their armor were supplied by the USA.
-
I'm a bit curious now, where does HT dig up markings of particular vehicles and planes, and is there any significance to the ones chosen? Even the players who aren't history buffs recognize certain planes, but many of the defaults I see in AH are complete mysteries to me.
-
The Firefly is based off of a Sherman VC Firefly from the "B" Squadron, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 29th Armored Brigade, British 11th Armored Division, during operation "Goodwood" around the Orne River, France - July 1944.
And yes - the operation name makes me laugh. :)
-
"Goodwood":D
-
I think thats every morning for me.
-
Originally posted by Waffle
The Firefly is based off of a Sherman VC Firefly from the "B" Squadron, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 29th Armored Brigade, British 11th Armored Division, during operation "Goodwood" around the Orne River, France - July 1944.
And yes - the operation name makes me laugh. :)
:rofl
-
You guys are missing something here. That long barrel sticking out of the front is just to avert your attention away from the real powerful weapon, that stinger hanging off the top. ;)
Looks beautiful, great job.
-
Originally posted by Waffle
The Firefly is based off of a Sherman VC Firefly from the "B" Squadron, 2nd Fife and Forfar Yeomanry, 29th Armored Brigade, British 11th Armored Division, during operation "Goodwood" around the Orne River, France - July 1944.
And yes - the operation name makes me laugh. :)
so it's a brit tank of the queen regiment ?
-
Very nice.
One minor thing though.
Sherman VC "Firefly" didn't have a .50 cal mounted on the turret.
Get it off of there.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I have it on DVD :)
The theme song is really catchy too, have that in my music folder
Burning Bridges (http://youtube.com/watch?v=9_VhnAl2BFM&mode=related&search=)
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Very nice.
One minor thing though.
Sherman VC "Firefly" didn't have a .50 cal mounted on the turret.
Get it off of there.
Do you have some info on that? It's something I've been fretting about. Every source I've seen states that it was retained yet I've never seen a photo to corroborate that.
-
(http://www.tanxheaven.com/ljs/fireflyljs/9910-Sherman-VC-Firefly,Ursel.JPG)
(http://www.tanxheaven.com/ljs/fireflyljs/9909-Sherman-VC-Firefly,Ursel.JPG)
This a firefly?
Bronk
-
looks like a Firefly to me :D
-
A photo of a restoration doesn't count. It's not a question of whether a .50 could be equipped, it's a question of whether they did in service. Of all the photos I've seen of them in action, I have yet to see one with a .50 mounted. Without some additional corroboration, I'm inclined to pull it.
-
Oops, nm, I wasn't reading well.
-
Rgr that Pyro I'll keep digging.
Bronk
-
The Brits rarely used the 50 cal on their Shermans I have sometimes seen pics of them mount 30cals tho as the turret top gun.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The gun in question is the coaxial, right?
No the coaxial is the gun mounted next to the main gun.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Pyro
A photo of a restoration doesn't count. It's not a question of whether a .50 could be equipped, it's a question of whether they did in service. Of all the photos I've seen of them in action, I have yet to see one with a .50 mounted. Without some additional corroboration, I'm inclined to pull it.
these would be the guys to contact about it: http://www.tankmuseum.co.uk
-
Interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_tank
And
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
:cool:
-
Waffle, can you tell me something about the skin the tank has? I'm curious, Belvedere is an italian word. :)
Btw, Kelly's heroes was a great movie, I like to watch it every time it's aired!
-
staight from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Firefly
Sherman Firefly
General characteristics
Crew 4 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Length 19 ft 4 in, 5.89 m
Width 9 ft, 2.75 m
Height 8 ft 7 in, 2.62 m
Weight 33 tonnes
Armour and armament
Armour 89 mm
Main armament OQF 17 pdr (76 mm) gun
Secondary armament
.50 Browning M2 machine gun (12.7 mm)
.30 Browning M1919 machine gun (7.62 mm)
Mobility
Power plant Chrysler Multibank (5 x inline-6) gasoline
425 hp ( kW)
Suspension coil spring
Road speed 25 mph (40 km/h)
Power/weight hp/tonne
Range 120 miles (193 km
One thing though not one pic of the thing shows the secondary 30 or 50 cal mounted on the top
-
Sorry but that proves very little because Wiki is not a reliable source of information. That is because anyone can edit Wiki.
For instance: only the other day i changed Skuzzy's name on the HTC section to "bearded warrior princess", but it was soon edited out.
:noid
-
OMG man like what the hell is a burnt out hippy acid reject surfer type doin in WW2? Joo go to hell Donald Sutherland! Joo go to hell and you die!
:confused: :D
-
Deck, I suspect that wiki entry is inaccurate. I read it yesterday. I also read another writeup on another site that said the .30cal coaxial was deleted from the turent to make room for the gun.
I also read another site and a couple of lines that indicated the .50cal was mounted on approximatly 80 Fireflys M4A3W that were converted for US Army
-
Belvedere is also a Polish vodka.
WRT the .50, as I said it is listed in most specs. That's not in dispute. Whether the spec accurately reflects the tank that went forth into the field is the question.
-
http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/equiparmourtanks.htm
I havent found a photo yet... but
The 75mm gun soon became obsolete and the British re-gunned some of their Shermans with the 17-pdr anti-tank gun, which became known as the Firefly (Left). This gave them a method of knocking out the heavier German tanks at longer range. The Americans used a 76mm version to achieve the same. To accommodate the larger gun the coaxial machine gun was removed and a larger counter weight fitted to the back of the turret. Towards the end of the war the later models also had the hull machine gun removed so more of the larger 17-pdr ammunition could be carried. To provide protection against infantry some tank commanders often mounted a 0.30" Browning or BESA machine gun on the turret.
-
every source I have indicates a .303 cal (7.62mm) mg with the exact same mounting you show for the M2. but that should really be of little matter whether you decide to retain it or not. it's great you guys decided to finally include the ubiquetous sherman in at least one iteration.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
Belvedere is also a Polish vodka.
WRT the .50, as I said it is listed in most specs. That's not in dispute. Whether the spec accurately reflects the tank that went forth into the field is the question.
I am guessing that because the gun was so big it had to be on its side to be loaded that there was no room for anyone to man the turret mounted .50cal. Hence the reason why no pics of it can be found. The .30 cal was also done away with to make room for the longer shells of the main gun! The rate of fire was half that of regular Sherman's due to the cramped quaters of the firefly! This is just an opinion!:aok
Mark
-
Thanks for answer, Pyro! ;)
-
D-Day to Berlin by Terry Wise
M4 Sherman by George Forty
Janes World Armored Fighting Vehicles by Chris Foss
No pics of a Firefly with a .50 on top (or any other British vehicle).
I did see one pic in "D-Day to Berlin" with a .30 mounted at the commanders position but this is obviously a rare crew modification as none of the other pics that I can see have any machine gun at all on the Firefly.
-
I've been combing through a World War II Encyclopedia. What I find interesting is there are a lot of pics of Shermans without the .50 cal. It makes me wonder if they were often removed?
There is one picture of three Shermans taken from perhaps six stories up. The caption reads "American Firefly tanks roll through a Normandy town." Although I thought the Firefly was purely a British variant, the gun looks long enough to be a 17 lbr and the turret looks to have the same counterweight. At any rate, they appear to have pintle mounted MGs, although admittedly due to the distance it is hard to be certain if the small lines are in fact an MG or some other aparatus.
In another volume it lists the "American/British Sherman M4A4/VC Firefly Tank" and gives some specs including a "one .5-inch Browning machine gun".
Not sure that adds anything to the discussion . . .
-
Originally posted by Pyro
A photo of a restoration doesn't count. It's not a question of whether a .50 could be equipped, it's a question of whether they did in service. Of all the photos I've seen of them in action, I have yet to see one with a .50 mounted. Without some additional corroboration, I'm inclined to pull it.
Just a question then . . . do you have photos of a Tiger with a pintle mounted MG? I don't recall ever seeing a photo of one, and the Tiger pics I've come across today while searching for the Firefly MG do not show any either. Neither do most of the IVs, although one pic of a knocked out IV has what looks like a mount for one. Coupled with the many photos of Shermans without AAMGs I've seen today, I'm starting to wonder if they either were much more rare than I always thought, or if they were sometimes stowed away somewhere else on the tank to prevent exposure to the elements when not in use.
My opinion (as if it held any weight) would be to leave the AA MG on all of them even without the photographic evidence if the source documentation supports that they were available.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I've been combing through a World War II Encyclopedia. What I find interesting is there are a lot of pics of Shermans without the .50 cal. It makes me wonder if they were often removed?
There is one picture of three Shermans taken from perhaps six stories up. The caption reads "American Firefly tanks roll through a Normandy town." Although I thought the Firefly was purely a British variant, the gun looks long enough to be a 17 lbr and the turret looks to have the same counterweight. At any rate, they appear to have pintle mounted MGs, although admittedly due to the distance it is hard to be certain if the small lines are in fact an MG or some other aparatus.
In another volume it lists the "American/British Sherman M4A4/VC Firefly Tank" and gives some specs including a "one .5-inch Browning machine gun".
Not sure that adds anything to the discussion . . .
Easy8 main gun looks similar I believe.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I am guessing that because the gun was so big it had to be on its side to be loaded that there was no room for anyone to man the turret mounted .50cal. Hence the reason why no pics of it can be found. The .30 cal was also done away with to make room for the longer shells of the main gun! The rate of fire was half that of regular Sherman's due to the cramped quaters of the firefly! This is just an opinion!:aok
Mark
For clarification, the .30 cal that was done away with was the hull gun. AFAIK, the .30 cal coaxle MG remained.
-
ok found a pic, but it looks like a .30
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/Sherman/
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174588211_firefly_4.jpg)
not sure if this is a Firefly...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174588448_sherman_14.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Easy8 main gun looks similar I believe.
Bronk
I don't discount that the tanks could be mis-identified. But if memory serves, the Easy 8 turret was a bit oblong in shape as the counterweight was integrated into the turret design. These appear to be the more round "standard shape" turret with a boxy-looking counterweight added. If not for the clearly shown US marking on the top-rear hull, I would have thought Firefly right away.
But as I said, the picture is from far away, so I wouldn't bet my life on it (or five bucks for that matter).
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
ok found a pic, but it looks like a .30
http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/Sherman/
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174588211_firefly_4.jpg)
not sure if this is a Firefly...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174588448_sherman_14.jpg)
The bottom one appears to me to be an Easy 8. The top one looks like a Firefly.
-
I can confirm that the bottom pic is not a Firefly. 3 quick giveaways are the single hatch, hull gun, and the shape of the muzzle brake.
-
I have dug through about 6 books and found a couple dozen pictures of Fireflies and have seen no machine guns mounted on the turret.
I would also like to point out that I have seen alot more than 24 pictures of Tiger I's and none of them have a turret mounted machine gun either.
Like wise the MkIV but there I have only seen a good dozen pictures of that tank.
So, if you feel required to remove it from the Firefly, I might suggest you should consider removing it from the other two tanks as well.
-
Did the turrets all have whatever lugs or receivers in place required to mount the guns, whether or not the upper MG was used?
Pyro, what's that about a single hatch in the lower pic?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Pyro, what's that about a single hatch in the lower pic?
I know I am not Pyro, but if you look at the open hatch on top of the turret in the bottom picture, you see that it is a single, round hatch. On the Firefly, the commander's hatch opened in two halves.
-
...and the Firefly had dual reinforced "ramps" up towards the periscopes on the front-upper hull.
You can clearly see them in the top photo but not in the lower, which is an E8 to my limited knowlege.
-
Hubs, what E25280 said
Firefly
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174591731_fireflya.gif)
M4A276W Sherman
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174591765_m4a276w.gif)
-
OK, not an E-8 then. :(
-
The lack of a bow mounted MG is correct, the Firefly had that position removed to reduce the crew and it carried more ammunition than a regular Sherman. It did retain the coaxial .30 cal MG as a ranging machine gun, on the left of the 17 Pdr.
The British and Canadian Shermans did not deploy the turret mounted M2 .50 cal.
The Firefly would have had the option, like other British Shermans, to have a .30 Browning on the turret.
Unless somebody can provide a photo to the contrary it should be removed (the 50). Museum tanks are not proof of wartime designs.
As for having a 30 caliber...I would say it was optional, as the Brit Shermans did have them armed that way, and you must remember that a photo of a Firefly without the turret MG doesnt "prove" it wasnt installed, ALL tanks had the turret MGs removed and stored inside the tank. Placing it in the mounting was the tank commanders call. Often it wasnt deemed as needed, so it stayed unmounted. Or, moving through dense brush, or if they were expecting an enemy barrage, are all reasons to keep it unmounted. US Army Sherman photos are the same, sometimes there is no 50 mounted, simply because its not mounted on the tank at the time the photo was snapped.
Model of a Candian Firefly with a .30 mounted:
http://hsgalleries.com/images/fireflybf_1.jpg
Photo of a Firefly with a turret MG under a cover (looks like a .30 to me):
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/GB-ShermanFireFly-Normandy.jpg
-
Originally posted by E25280
OK, not an E-8 then. :(
The lower picture?
Only other long barreled Sherman was the 76A right? The one pictured is definitely upgunned from a 76A.
Edit:A76 not 76A
-
Sherman "Firefly" of the 13/18th Hussars with 3rd Div infantrymen before Goodwood.
The tanks have MG's mounted up top, but can't tell if they're .50's or 30 cals...
(http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/historiantales_wwii/brittank.jpg)
(http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/historiantales_wwii/tanktrp.jpg)
(http://www.warchronicle.com/staffsyeo/historiantales_wwii/brittank2.jpg)
-
Long gun shermans
M4A1(76)w
M4A2(76)w
M4A3(76)w HVSS
I dont have anything (yet) for the E8
-
Squire's post is interesting. It seems reasonable, and from a pure gameplay perspective, the addition of a top mounted gun would offer some degree of defense against aircraft, and also becomes good for spraying would-be tankjacking jeeps, and troops.
If the documentation points to the guns being equipped, and there are pictures of Fireflies both with and without the top gun mounted, surely it wouldn't be a game breaker to model it in.
Granted, I'm no expert on armor, but I am of the mindset that if one gun is good, 2 is better, and 3 is better still. ;)
It's an interesting discussion. A crash course in military hardware without leaving the comfort of your desk chair. :aok
-
Hubs, that is a great observation. So long as the bug exists where a jeep can crawl inside and kill any tank, the top mounted machine gun should stay.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
becomes good for spraying would-be tankjacking jeeps
:rofl
that made me laugh.
-
Don't remember seeing this mentioned but the default skin is most likely..
'Belvedere' B Sq, Staffordshire Yeomanry, 27th Armored Brigade, July 1944, Normandy
Cheers
-
Tank jacking Jeeps:noid
how about running' man jeep as he gets carpet bombed:noid
so this "firefly: sherman would beat the T-34 here :O looks like i need a new ride:noid
-
What I find interesting about this thread is how it parallels all the tank buffs websites and modeller sites. There are often huge arguments around variations.
The Sherman is an absolute minefield of variations. Some people model only Shermans and have yet to run out of new twists. For every factory model there are ten field variations, rebuilds and updates. So you can guarantee that somebody somewhere put a .50 cal on the turret of a Firefly. All we need is photo proof.
-
alright, earlier today I ran across a site that said that there were approximately 80 Fireflys give to the US Army and they mounted .50s. article was very particular about references to a British document and related information pertaining to the mounting of the gun and storage of ammo containers. I am trying to find that site again...
In the meantime I have ran across this...i dont think its a firefly, but it could have been misidentified on the website. its has a .50 but it looks like it also has a hull gun.
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Article.asp?ArticleID=266
In Italy British and Commonwealth forces used the same Sherman models as their NW European counterparts but without as many Firefly Shermans until late 1944 as there wasn’t as much German armoured opposition. The British received some M4A1(76)W (Sherman IIa) and M4(105) (Sherman 1b) Shermans under lend-lease and some went to the Polish Armoured division in France and all the rest went to the British and Commonwealth armoured units on the Italian front.
Left: M4A1(76)W (Sherman IIa) in South African service in Italy
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174614181_sherman-iia.jpg)
-
great, i think i found it, nope but still some good info there
http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/
http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/usnew.html
-
So long as a jeep can drive inside of a tiger and kill it...
....Fireflies shall have turret mounted .50 cals.
-
More guns on a tank? Brilliant!
-
From what I've been able to find. Its all going to depend onthe type of main gun HTC is planning on using
If it has the 75MM then the gun can stay. If they are using the 17 pdr anti Tank Gun then the coaxil gun was removed
Though some commanders added the 30 cal to the turret
"Sherman and Sherman Firefly:
The M4 Sherman if probably one of the best known tanks of the Second World War. It was developed from requests by the British for a tank with a 75mm gun in a rotating turret, instead of the sponson used on the Grant.
Two designs were considered, one using a cast hull and the other a welded hull, with both basing the engine and running gear on the M3 Grant. A welded hull model of the M4 was produced as the M4A1 and production began in February 1942, for delivery to the British. The basic Sherman has a turtle backed hull and a cast turret. The driver sat in the front left with an assistant driver/machine gunner alongside him. The engine was an air-cooled aircraft radial mounted in the rear of the hull. The drive shaft then passed along the floor to the transmission unit in the front, where it drove the track drive sprockets. The turret mounted a 75mm gun and a co-axial machine gun, with the gunner on the right, the commander behind him, with the loader/machine gunner on the left. The early Shermans have the characteristic of having rounded corners to the top of the front hull, while the latter one had "squarer" corners.
The 75mm gun soon became obsolete and the British re-gunned some of their Shermans with the 17-pdr anti-tank gun, which became known as the Firefly (Left). This gave them a method of knocking out the heavier German tanks at longer range. The Americans used a 76mm version to achieve the same. To accommodate the larger gun the coaxial machine gun was removed and a larger counter weight fitted to the back of the turret. Towards the end of the war the later models also had the hull machine gun removed so more of the larger 17-pdr ammunition could be carried. To provide protection against infantry some tank commanders often mounted a 0.30" Browning or BESA machine gun on the turret.
All models of the Sherman caught fire easily, which earned them the nickname of "Ronsons" by their crews and "Tommy Cookers" by the Germans, but it was the mainstay of the British Armoured Division until almost the end of the war, when the Cromwell had fully replaced it. A Diesel version was also produced which did not catch fire so easily, but this was not widely available. "
Now the only other question is if they are planning on using the Gas or Deisel version LOL
-
I dont know, the more I read the more confuseded I get...
Sherman VC Firefly
(M4A4 rearmed with 17pdr gun, hull machine gun deleted to increase ammunition stowage)
http://www.tanxheaven.com/ljs/fireflyljs/fireflyljs.htm
now someone earlier today posted a pic from this site and Pyro said a rebuilt museum piece didnt count. But I'm curious because this says its an M4A4 Firefly specs.
now here's a pic of the mounting from two different tanks
one with
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174616732_9927-sherman-vc-fireflyursel.jpg)
and one without
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174616838_55-m-4sherman-fireflyhechtel.jpg)
So something was mounted there, either a .30 or a .50
-
nothing yet but I did run across another interesting site... got a lot of color pics of Shermans, Stuarts, etc
http://community.webshots.com/user/stahlgewitter33
http://www.oorlogsmusea.nl/artikel/759
-
I think Squire hit the nail on the head. No army would say "Fewer guns is better", but many would say, "FFS, put the gun inside the tank when you don't need it". Or maybe that's just me.
-
HTC's own artists made the Firefly's "50 cal" look like a giant 30 cal (perforated barrel jacket). That should be a good hint of what their references showed...
(http://www1.hitechcreations.com/images/firefly/ff3.jpg)
-
Looked through all my stuff and not a single pic of Sherman Firefly's with MGs on top.
I think part of the issue was the additional hatch that was put on the Firefly, where there was not a hatch on the standard Sherman at the time.
Someone posted a shot of a supposed Firefly during Goodwood, but I've seen a number of photos of Shermans used by the Brits, Canadians and Poles that had a storage bin in the same place the extention was for the Firefly and I believe that's what the photo shows, not a Firefly.
If it was up to me, I'd leave the 50 off the Sherman Firefly.
I'm also quite thankful that Pyro and company chose the Firefly to give it a chance against the Tiger etc instead of going with the standard short barrel 75 Sherman.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174588448_sherman_14.jpg)
This is an M4A3....
My regards,
Widewing
-
Widewing,
Actually thats not an M4A3 - its an M4A2 under lead lease to the Russians. The M4A2 was a diesel powered Sherman. In any case it certainly ist a firefly.
And, as a handy ID tip, all Firefly's were built on regular 75mm Sherman turrets and not on the T23 turrets of 76mm shermans.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
HTC's own artists made the Firefly's "50 cal" look like a giant 30 cal (perforated barrel jacket). That should be a good hint of what their references showed...
Actually, it was piece no. c4047 from the m2 50cal jacket assembly that makes it look like it does. :)
-
Turn to the Military Channel right now.:aok
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Looked through all my stuff and not a single pic of Sherman Firefly's with MGs on top.
I think part of the issue was the additional hatch that was put on the Firefly, where there was not a hatch on the standard Sherman at the time.
Someone posted a shot of a supposed Firefly during Goodwood, but I've seen a number of photos of Shermans used by the Brits, Canadians and Poles that had a storage bin in the same place the extention was for the Firefly and I believe that's what the photo shows, not a Firefly.
If it was up to me, I'd leave the 50 off the Sherman Firefly.
I'm also quite thankful that Pyro and company chose the Firefly to give it a chance against the Tiger etc instead of going with the standard short barrel 75 Sherman.
I've seen several Firefly Vc types with .50 cal BMG mounted on the turrets.
Here's one...
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/argentina/Arg-Sherman-1.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Any info on where that image was taken Widewing? I'd happily accept it as wrong that standard practice was not to have the 50 on the Firefly.
I got interested in the Battles between the British, Canadiens and Poles vs the German SS armor from Caen to Faliase after we stayed in a place in Cauvicourt in 2005 near where Wittmann met his end. I grabbed all the books I could find at the time and since about those battles and even though the photos show short barreled Shermans with Firefly's only the short barrel Shermans show the 50s on the turret.
-
Is the only thing separating a tank with an MG mounted, and a tank without it, the post and gun? Is the turret on the Firefly specific to that tank, and are the hatches and related components specific to this turret?
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Any info on where that image was taken Widewing?
No, there was no info with the image...
There's a museum Firefly...
(http://www.tanxheaven.com/ljs/fireflyljs/9910-Sherman-VC-Firefly,Ursel.JPG)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Not sure if thats a Firefly, but no .50 on top.
(http://www.peachmountain.com/5star/images/2006_FtKnox_Tanks/NSengupta_FtKnox_2006_4299_T28Tanks.jpg)
EDIT- NM, thats an Easy Eight. I just seem to keep getting dragged into that bad-boy. :)
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Looked through all my stuff and not a single pic of Sherman Firefly's with MGs on top.
I think part of the issue was the additional hatch that was put on the Firefly, where there was not a hatch on the standard Sherman at the time.
Someone posted a shot of a supposed Firefly during Goodwood, but I've seen a number of photos of Shermans used by the Brits, Canadians and Poles that had a storage bin in the same place the extention was for the Firefly and I believe that's what the photo shows, not a Firefly.
If it was up to me, I'd leave the 50 off the Sherman Firefly.
I'm also quite thankful that Pyro and company chose the Firefly to give it a chance against the Tiger etc instead of going with the standard short barrel 75 Sherman.
It's obvious to me that the Firefly was capable of mounting a 50 cal AAA
mg..so why not let it? For you historo-realism nazis out there...it was not
standard practice for fighter bombers to carry 1,000 lb bombs either. You
can make some adjustments for gameplay.
-
I know I've seen that tank in another series of pictures, but there's a detail in there I've missed before. The panels on the front of the tank, are those modifications to the hull, or just armor plates welded on to protect the crew? In other photos, someone pointed out the "ramps", as they appear, being unique to Firefly's, but here it just looks like a hasty field mod. Was this a standard thing for Firefly hulls, or was this prevalent among other Shermans as well?
You make me giggle, Phan. I'm on the same campaign myself.
-
(http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/cad2.jpg)
Looks pretty standard to me. I know the E8 and other ones didn't have that.
-
I notice that the Firefly images from AH:
(http://www1.hitechcreations.com/images/firefly/ff3.jpg)
Lack the plate on the side of the photos of Fireflies:
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/argentina/Arg-Sherman-1.jpg)
(http://www.tanxheaven.com/ljs/fireflyljs/9910-Sherman-VC-Firefly,Ursel.JPG)
The side plate in the gmae's Firefly is flat whereas the sides of the Fireflies in the photos have a raised rectangle of armor on them.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
I've seen several Firefly Vc types with .50 cal BMG mounted on the turrets.
Here's one...
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/argentina/Arg-Sherman-1.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
Well there is the .50 sitting on the firefly.
Keep it.
Bronk
Edit: And judging by the funny helmets *snicker* , those are most definitely Brits. :D
-
Actually, it was piece no. c4047 from the m2 50cal jacket assembly that makes it look like it does.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a ground-mounted, jacketed M2 used in the field -- from WW2 photos until I had one sitting in front of me on an M113 :)
Charon
-
An oversight caused the aircraft M2 to get put on there instead of the M2HB.
-
Sherman Firefly
General characteristics
Crew 4 (Commander, gunner, loader, driver)
Length 19 ft 4 in, 5.89 m
Width 9 ft, 2.75 m
Height 8 ft 7 in, 2.62 m
Weight 33 tonnes
Armour and armament
Armour 89 mm
Main armament OQF 17 pdr (76 mm) gun
Secondary armament .50 Browning M2 machine gun (12.7 mm)
.30 Browning M1919 machine gun (7.62 mm)
Mobility
Power plant Chrysler Multibank (5 x inline-6) gasoline
425 hp ( kW)
Suspension coil spring
Road speed 25 mph (40 km/h)
Power/weight hp/tonne
Range 120 miles (193 km)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174588211_firefly_4.jpg)
notice the extensions on the tracks.
...
-
Widewing cool find on that photo, brit shermans using the 50 were exceedingly rare.
-
WHOA! WAIT A SECOND.
I know something was up. Thats not a WW2 British vehicle - its a post war Firefly acquired by Argentina.
Originally posted by Widewing
I've seen several Firefly Vc types with .50 cal BMG mounted on the turrets.
Here's one...
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/argentina/Arg-Sherman-1.jpg)
My regards,
Widewing
More pics:
(http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/argentina/Arg-ShermanFireflys-1.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Rino
It's obvious to me that the Firefly was capable of mounting a 50 cal AAA
mg..so why not let it? For you historo-realism nazis out there...it was not
standard practice for fighter bombers to carry 1,000 lb bombs either. You
can make some adjustments for gameplay.
Hey Pyro asked if it was standard practice or something to that effect. Historo-realism nazi indeed! :)
-
maybe, maybe not. Widewing's tank has the coaxial gun, your's the Argentina tank does not have a coaxial gun. In Widewing's those look like British/Canadian soldiers...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Widewing cool find on that photo, brit shermans using the 50 were exceedingly rare.
I'm pretty sure that this was a depot mod... Installation of flexible MGs was a common depot task.
American depots commonly upgraded vehicles. Over 200 Sherman M4A3E2 Jumbos were built in Army depots from M4A3s, using armor kits fabricated in the States and shipped to the ETO. Complete cast turrets and strengthened suspension components were also part of the kit. 3rd Army converted 108 M4A3s to Jumbos (all were fitted with the M1A1 or M1A2 76mm gun).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
maybe, maybe not. Widewing's tank has the coaxial gun, your's the Argentina tank does not have a coaxial gun. In Widewing's those look like British/Canadian soldiers...
Why, because of the helmets? Nope:
From the site where widewing got his 50 cal Firefly pic:
http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/argentina/argentina.html
"Note the "British style" helmets in the right photo. In truth, the helmets are that in appearance only! They are in fact they are just a protective ring of cork built encased in cloth, just like tropical helmets. Note that they have built in ear pads which enclose the earphone. Lt.Cnl. Carlos R. Doglioli advised TANKS! that "about the Sherman tanks bought by the Argentine Army in 1946 and whose delivery begun in 1947, they included a number of AFVs mounting the excellent British 17 pounder, known here by its caliber in mm., that is 76,2 mm. I am quite sure that Argentina was the only S. American country to field these Sherman with British 17 pounders. All the other S. American countries had Sherman's with 75 mm. guns."
-
^^^^^
What happens when O-Club class intardnet detectives arrive in the GDF for $500 Alex.
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hey Pyro asked if it was standard practice or something to that effect. Historo-realism nazi indeed! :)
Realism uber alles..as long as it isn't the one I like :D It wasn't
standard practice to mount an M2 on the jeep..but they managed to slap it on anyway..so there..neener neener.
Ah, what the heck, don't want to scare the Lancstukas away with an
uber pintle mount anyway :aok
-
Originally posted by Edbert
^^^^^
What happens when O-Club class intardnet detectives arrive in the GDF for $500 Alex.
Hey I got a badge
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/874_1174677493_eln-badge.jpg)
-
Bravo.
After searching probably thousands of googled photo's you finally found one with a .50 HMG on a Firefly.
The Browning .50 was standard equipment on most US vehicles and also used by the ground troops. If you google normal M4 Shermans, M8's, Stuart light tanks, M2/M3 halftracks, US supply trucks, boats, ships...etc you'll see almost every one has a .50 on it.
Not so with the British vehicles.
They didn't use the .50 HMG as standard equipment. If you google Churchill tanks, Matildas, Comets, Cromwells, British armored cars, trucks, boats, ships, etc. you will not see a .50 cal in sight.
It is obvious through your diligent searching that there were a few .50's used by the British. Again, it was not common.
-
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.
Hmm the 3gun La7 was uber rare ...... and yet there it is, sitting in my AH hanger.
Imagine that.:rolleyes:
And Edbert Thats some funny chit.:rofl :rofl
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Blooz
Bravo.
After searching probably thousands of googled photo's you finally found one with a .50 HMG on a Firefly.
The Browning .50 was standard equipment on most US vehicles and also used by the ground troops. If you google normal M4 Shermans, M8's, Stuart light tanks, M2/M3 halftracks, US supply trucks, boats, ships...etc you'll see almost every one has a .50 on it.
Not so with the British vehicles.
They didn't use the .50 HMG as standard equipment. If you google Churchill tanks, Matildas, Comets, Cromwells, British armored cars, trucks, boats, ships, etc. you will not see a .50 cal in sight.
It is obvious through your diligent searching that there were a few .50's used by the British. Again, it was not common.
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...
-
wow, the BMG 50 haters are out in force.
whah whah ban the uber 50 lazer,
-
Originally posted by john9001
wow, the BMG 50 haters are out in force.
whah whah ban the uber 50 lazer,
This has absolutely nothing to do with it.
-
...in the end, it matters little, its not going to be killing other Tanks with a .50, even if it had one. If somebody wants to spray at Jeeps or a/c, grab an Ostwind or an M16.
"In Widewing's those look like British/Canadian soldiers..."
They aren't.
Airscrews photo is the "proof" of a .30 browning though, those are British WW2 soldiers, on a Firefly. Good find. :aok
It should be given a .30 Browning on the turret, just to keep the pests away.
-
It does matter.
The other vehicles are modelled correctly.
I'd like to see the Firefly modelled correctly also.
-
So how about a .30 cal? If it could have it, and some did have it, even if every single tank didn't, what's the big deal?
-
From "La Massue" a history of the Polish Armored Battalion in Normandy where they fought through the Falaise Gap.
First image is a pair of their regular Shermans. Not the storage boxes on the back that could be mistaken for the look of a Firefly from that angle. Also note the 50s on the turret. This is consistant with their unit in about 90% of the photos of regular Shermans in the book and there are a lot of images.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1174710719_shermans.jpg)
Image of one of the Firefly's from the Polish unit taken at the same time as the preceeding image. Note no 50 on the turret. This too is consistant in the book as there are no 50s shown on any Firefly photos from the Poles.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1174710683_firefly.jpg)
From the book "No Holding Back" by Brian Reid, about Operation Totalize in Normandy, August 1944. The Poles were a part of this along with Canadien and British units.
Photo shows a Brit Sherman with the 50 well in evidence.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1174710708_sherman.jpg)
Photo of a Sherman column. Two regular Shermans are there and one Firefly. You can see the 50s on the short gun Shermans, but no 50 is there on the Firefly. For whatever reason they seemed to leave it off the Firefly.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/169_1174710694_column.jpg)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
Did the Tiger always have the upper MG? Did it usually have the upper, or only sometimes, or only rarely?
-
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.
-
It is strange we couldn't get that option.
-
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
This has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Then what is "it" about?
-
Modeling the AH Firefly as close to how it most commonly was in WWII.
-
Originally posted by moot
Modeling the AH Firefly as close to how it most commonly was in WWII.
What makes the M4 more special than the Tiger or Pzkw IV then?
Having a pintle mount really doesn't make much difference for air
defense, but makes a HUGE difference to GV SA.
Just try the difference between running a Panzer pintle and a T-34 as
regards picking up targets. If you guys insist on taking away a gun
position that was used on some Fireflies, then at least put in an
"unbuttoned" binocular view that can rotate the same as the MG does.
The tiger and panzer don't need to be slavishly devoted to WW2
"realism" so why the sherman? Heck, the tiger runs as fast as the panzer
does..how realistic is that?
-
There's an odd double standard in here regarding this kind of thing. One thing that is completely unrealistic is accepted as perfectly normal, while something that was uncommon, but perfectly reasonable, is viewed as an intolerable abomination.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Heck, the tiger runs as fast as the panzer
does..how realistic is that?
Top speed of a PzkwIV was approximately 40kph. Tiger's top speed was 38kph. Not too different. Sherman's speed is right in that range as well.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
There's an odd double standard in here regarding this kind of thing. One thing that is completely unrealistic is accepted as perfectly normal, while something that was uncommon, but perfectly reasonable, is viewed as an intolerable abomination.
Yup
And Im not saying that out of sarcasm for your statement. but rather in agreement with it
-
Originally posted by Rino
What makes the M4 more special than the Tiger or Pzkw IV then?
Having a pintle mount really doesn't make much difference for air
defense, but makes a HUGE difference to GV SA.
Just try the difference between running a Panzer pintle and a T-34 as
regards picking up targets. If you guys insist on taking away a gun
position that was used on some Fireflies, then at least put in an
"unbuttoned" binocular view that can rotate the same as the MG does.
The tiger and panzer don't need to be slavishly devoted to WW2
"realism" so why the sherman? Heck, the tiger runs as fast as the panzer
does..how realistic is that?
As they update and add new models they are being a lot more careful to match the historical units. Like how the hodge-podge Bf109G-10 and Spitfire Mk IX were taken care of.
When the Tiger and Panzer are updated they will be made more accurate too.
You are spot on about the observer mode though.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
A photo of a restoration doesn't count. It's not a question of whether a .50 could be equipped, it's a question of whether they did in service. Of all the photos I've seen of them in action, I have yet to see one with a .50 mounted. Without some additional corroboration, I'm inclined to pull it.
For those griping about some of the 'realism' responses in this thread. The above quote is what I was responding too.
I could personally care less about whether a Firefly in AH has a 50 on is or not. The question was whether they used them in service. All I've found says they didn't mount them, even though standard Shermans in the same units had them.
In the end it's Pyro's call. All we can do is supply the info we have or find.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
You are spot on about the observer mode though.
Having the commander unbuttoned for observation (or use of AA MG) should expose him to proximity damage though. Even a not-so-near miss of a 1,000 pounder would ruin his unbuttoned day.
-
Originally posted by Rino
What makes the M4 more special than the Tiger or Pzkw IV then?
Having a pintle mount really doesn't make much difference for air
defense, but makes a HUGE difference to GV SA.
Just try the difference between running a Panzer pintle and a T-34 as
regards picking up targets. If you guys insist on taking away a gun
position that was used on some Fireflies, then at least put in an
"unbuttoned" binocular view that can rotate the same as the MG does.
The tiger and panzer don't need to be slavishly devoted to WW2
"realism" so why the sherman? Heck, the tiger runs as fast as the panzer
does..how realistic is that?
1- The T-34 does have a commander's position. A Firefly without a pintle gun would as well.
2- You might want to check into the top speeds of the Panzer IV and the Tiger before pointing that it as if it were a gross misrepresentation.
-
What about having the 50 cal as an option in the loadout, it seems some had, some didnt... maybe offset it with a reduced ammo load for the main and coax guns if the 50 was taken? or an extremely light perk? like .5 or so?
Just a thought on this issue
Matt
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
I could personally care less about whether a Firefly in AH has a 50 on is or not. The question was whether they used them in service. All I've found says they didn't mount them, even though standard Shermans in the same units had them.
In the end it's Pyro's call. All we can do is supply the info we have or find.
Thanks, that's all I'm looking for. In the end, there's a world of difference between uncommon and never. It's not "uncommon" that I have a problem with. I have to draw the line somewhere.
You could take the same arguments here and apply them to the hull gun(although nobody really cares about that gun). There's no reason why a Firefly can't have a hull gun. They simply removed it to make room for more ammo storage which may well be the same reason for not carrying a .50.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Having the commander unbuttoned for observation (or use of AA MG) should expose him to proximity damage though. Even a not-so-near miss of a 1,000 pounder would ruin his unbuttoned day.
Interesting in reading about the last engagement for Michael Wittmann and his Tiger.
The Commander of the Firefly that is credited with killing Wittmann's Tiger and two others, was unbuttoned. After killing the first Tiger with two shots from the 17 pounder, the other two Tigers traversed their turrets in his direction and fired at him. Anticipating this he was reversing to get to another position. A shot from one of the Tigers went over the top of the turret and hit the commander's hatch, slamming it shut on top of the Commander's head. Disoriented he then climbed out of the tank and was wounded by morter fire. Another Sherman commander raced to the Firefly and climbed in to finish the fight. The gunner on the Firefly was able to explode the second Tiger with one shot and finished the third Tiger with two more shots.
But that open hatch played a part and that first Firefly commander had his day ruined by it
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Interesting in reading about the last engagement for Michael Wittmann and his Tiger.
The Commander of the Firefly that is credited with killing Wittmann's Tiger and two others, was unbuttoned. After killing the first Tiger with two shots from the 17 pounder, the other two Tigers traversed their turrets in his direction and fired at him. Anticipating this he was reversing to get to another position. A shot from one of the Tigers went over the top of the turret and hit the commander's hatch, slamming it shut on top of the Commander's head. Disoriented he then climbed out of the tank and was wounded by morter fire. Another Sherman commander raced to the Firefly and climbed in to finish the fight. The gunner on the Firefly was able to explode the second Tiger with one shot and finished the third Tiger with two more shots.
But that open hatch played a part and that first Firefly commander had his day ruined by it
:O :O
Bronk
-
Hey Pyro, what I think Phan is asking for, is that you be able to "traverse" in those positions, without having to change view modes, fumble for the keypad, etc, just like you can if an MG is mounted.
The T-34 does not have this.
-
Commanders position .
Traversing the turret with the joystick, while controlling movement with rudder peds would be a great .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Hey Pyro, what I think Phan is asking for, is that you be able to "traverse" in those positions, without having to change view modes, fumble for the keypad, etc, just like you can if an MG is mounted.
The T-34 does not have this.
I see. I'll look at making it that way.
-
Yes, that is exactly what I was asking for, thanks. And I think I got my
King Tiger and Tiger speeds mixed up, my bad.
-
Pyro, could you please make the turret traverse remotely from the driver position with the rudder?
That's a simple one.. a less simple, but at least as useful one would be independent track brakes.. and center torque inversion for GVs that had them.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201287
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112773&highlight=torque
As it is we sometimes have to do 3 to 6 or more point turns when we could just rotate.
-
Originally posted by moot
Pyro, could you please make the turret traverse remotely from the driver position with the rudder?
Moot, Why? I can see wanting to be able to use the rudder to traverse the turret from the gunner position possibly but I dont see why from the driver position. Right now I usually steer from the commander's position using the rudder pedals
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Moot, Why? I can see wanting to be able to use the rudder to traverse the turret from the gunner position possibly but I dont see why from the driver position. Right now I usually steer from the commander's position using the rudder pedals
I'll take a stab at that -- no throttle or gear control from the commander's position.
-
I think you missed the stab ;)
Moot is asking to be able to traverse the turret from the driver position, in other words, while driving be able to point the turret. I dont see the benefit of being able to operate the turret from the driver's position, most of the time you cant even see the turret.
What I do when I am scouting for enemy tanks is sit in the commander's position and direct the tank, much the same way a commander of the tank would direct his driver. It would make more sense to me if you were able to traverse the turret from the commander's position because the commander would give direction orders from his position to the driver.
If I could change anything about tanks I would make the tank manable like the bombers, then 1 could drive and steer and 1 could shoot
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
If I could change anything about tanks I would make the tank manable like the bombers, then 1 could drive and steer and 1 could shoot
you can join someones tank as a gunner.
-
Tanks are mannable.
I like the idea of being able to drive a tank like a tank, but I think our GVs are just a modification of the A/C model, and have inherited some odd behaviors.
As examples off the top of my head. Start a tank up, and the nose dives, and the tank bounces up and down. Now, I've never driven a tank, but I've driven all sorts of tractors and some small tracked vehicles, from Bobcats to Steiger Panthers, and none bounced or nosed down 10 degrees from the torque of the starter.
The Jeep is not capable of sliding, but it will roll end over or on its side for days. It will also not turn sharply.
Start a vehicle up, and push the stick forward. The vehicle will start to roll backwards. This is a great one when you're trying to get out of the way of bombs on a field. The tank is on flat ground and not in gear, but rolls. At the same time, the vehicle can not be put in gear while it's moving, which seems odd in that it shouldn't be moving since it's not in gear in the first place.
Anyway, while I appreciate the notion of fully realistic and historical modelling, why in coad's name would you waste that effort on GVs?
-
wow, when did that happen? I guess I could spend more time in GVs but they go so sssslllllloooooooowwwwwww. i think I just pulled a Homer
-
I think it's always been that way, but I'm not positive.
-
great, cant wait till squad night, hey Ody.... let me drive your Tiger...
I'm an excellent driver.
Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway every Saturday. 'Course the seats were originally brown leather now they're a pitiful red.
I know this car.
It's a 1949 Buick Roadmaster. Straight 8. Fireball 8. Only 8,985 production models. Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway. But not on Monday, definitely not on Monday.
Uh oh, fifteen minutes to Judge Wapner.
-
Some more pictures for our Axis fans:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/SVCF1.jpg)
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/SVCF2.jpg)
And an M-8 Greyhound:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/M81.jpg)
And an "American M4A3 Sherman:
(http://members.arstechnica.com/x/karnak/M4A3.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I think you missed the stab ;)
Moot is asking to be able to traverse the turret from the driver position, in other words, while driving be able to point the turret. I dont see the benefit of being able to operate the turret from the driver's position, most of the time you cant even see the turret.
What I do when I am scouting for enemy tanks is sit in the commander's position and direct the tank, much the same way a commander of the tank would direct his driver. It would make more sense to me if you were able to traverse the turret from the commander's position because the commander would give direction orders from his position to the driver.
If I could change anything about tanks I would make the tank manable like the bombers, then 1 could drive and steer and 1 could shoot
I'm not sure I have. Try to "creep" around an obstacle you think an enemy is behind -- from the commander's position, either you are already moving and your throttle stays at full tilt and you go flying past, or you are already at a stop and must continue to sit there because you can't change gears.
So, lets say I want to sit in the driver's position to slowly creep the tank forward . . . and since a half second might be critical, I want to traverse the turret so it is at least pointing in the correct direction when I see the gun is clear and pop to the gunner's position.
To your point, though, having throttle and gear control from the commander's position (as well as turret control) would be even better. It is the "commander" position after all -- he should be able to com the driver and gunner and get them to do whatever he wants, right?
-
Originally posted by E25280
I'm not sure I have. Try to "creep" around an obstacle you think an enemy is behind -- from the commander's position, either you are already moving and your throttle stays at full tilt and you go flying past, or you are already at a stop and must continue to sit there because you can't change gears.
Ok, now i see it, this has happend to me, as I jump from Commander to driver, slow down, change gears, then jump to the gun
now this makes sense
So, lets say I want to sit in the driver's position to slowly creep the tank forward . . . and since a half second might be critical, I want to traverse the turret so it is at least pointing in the correct direction when I see the gun is clear and pop to the gunner's position.
and the half second is critical, usually if you can get the first shot (acurately)you can win the engagement
To your point, though, having throttle and gear control from the commander's position (as well as turret control) would be even better. It is the "commander" position after all -- he should be able to com the driver and gunner and get them to do whatever he wants, right? [/B]
and yes, except firing...
-
Target said it.
The only place you will have precise throttle control is in the driver's seat. So that's where I'd add turret traverse control.
As it is, I always keep in mind where the turret is pointing. Usually it's at either forward 45deg angles, so that I can simply stop the tank with the least square angles presented towards the target, and if necessary, get a shot off within a second of stopping.
With that extra control, you could change tactics immediately, without the extra time spent changing positions to turn the turret, keep the speed where you want it, jump to the top position for a clear view, etc.
Ideally you'd have control of all the controls, in any position, but I'm too sleepy to think of what the best way to do that would be.
And of course, having control of individual tracks as well would be just as useful. No more 8 point turns.