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.
| 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 |
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 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 :confused: :bolt:
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.
Interesting to note that the US conversions never saw combat. Wonder if any are rusting away somewhere in the US.
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 (http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/48/m4a3fireflysz48_1.html)
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 (http://freespace.virgin.net/shermanic.firefly/usnew.html)
ack-ack
Who doesnt like Zaloga?
Anyone know why U.S. fireflys never saw combat? I mean if you got them, you might as well use them.
I believe the individual you and I got into a discussion on whether or not any of the 76mm Shermans landed at the beaches on Normandy wasn't a big fan of Zaloga. Of course that was probably because Zaloga's work showed this particular individual to be incorrect.
ack-ack
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
actually, they are correct. Granted they give the maximum velocity and armor penetration the gun is capable of, not the measurments at combat ranges.
well Jamdive, seeing as the tiger is avaliable in MW, then we must have the tiger with the 25mm armor.
And how many 20mm rds do you think it would take to sever one of the connecters? The niki has 4x 20mm's, what is the ROF for them? And how many rds will hit the track assuming a 3 second burst?
And how many 20mm rds do you think it would take to sever one of the connecters? The niki has 4x 20mm's, what is the ROF for them? And how many rds will hit the track assuming a 3 second burst?
As far as using IL2's on a tigers turret top and engine lid, after march 1944, they increased the armour from 25mm to 40mm. Do the math on the IL2's 37mm. T/d, 40/37 the armour thickness over matches the diameter of the cannon, so these 1 pass tiger kills, to me anyway, are all fantasy (in the late war arenas anyway).
427 of the 1,349 Tigers produced were made between March 1944 and August 1944, when production shut down. So, the 40 mm roof armour applies to less than a third of Tigers made.
OK Jamdive, let me put it this way: Realism has to take a back seat to game play.
Either convince HTC to make the VH's require 6000lbs of ord to destroy, make it so killing ammo bunkers only cuts the ord you can take in half, or accept that (for reasons of game play) planes NEED to be able to track tanks.
Are you implying that HiTech increased the lethality of certain aircraft guns to allow them to take out the tracks of a tank in the name of game play? If you are, do you have any proof to back this claim or like 99.9% of the stuff you post, just pulling it out of your ass?
ack-ack
ouch. I bet someone is going to Rule # [insert] you real quick like. :lol
Oh, I'm sure Nemisis will go running off in tears to Skuzzy reporting how I was mean to him again on the forums.
However, I would still like him to confirm whether he was implying that he made certain guns on airplanes more lethal to allow tracking of ground vehicles purely for game play reasons. If Nemisis was implying this, then I would like to the proof he has that will show HiTech purposely over modeled a plane's guns for game play reasons.
While I don't expect any "proof" from our little misguided squeaker, I do expect to see a lot of backpedaling.
ack-ack
I didnt mean this thread to become a thread down the toilet,last time i saw a firefly was at the end of my Tiger's barrel... he didn't last long :D
was just commenting on the M4's suckage.
Are you implying that HiTech increased the lethality of certain aircraft guns to allow them to take out the tracks of a tank in the name of game play? If you are, do you have any proof to back this claim or like 99.9% of the stuff you post, just pulling it out of your ass?
ack-ack
last time i saw a firefly was at the end of my Tiger's barrel... he didn't last long :Dwish the firefly was nemesis or maybe even ackack for this argument :rolleyes:
What the hell did I do :lol?:D
Nemisis hides rank up there with a micheal vick football card.ouch...
I'm sorry, but I don't get it :banana:.michael vick is the biggest loser football has to offer. hes completely roasting you alive :t
michael vick is the biggest loser football has to offer. hes completely roasting you alive :t
LOL....I never thought of it that way. I was thinking more along the lines of "ease of obtaining".:lol its all good. either way the point was made :D
Herchel Walker or TO would be my picks before Vick in the loser department.