Sherman Firefly - what is it based on?

[Radpoe Spitfire]

Just want to know if anyone can tell me which Sherman tank was used for the Firefly, i.e. M4A?

Regards Adrian

[magman2]

M4A4 most numerous and M4 composite

[Seahawk]

Mainly M4A4 but also M4. Although the British army was a big user of M4A2s, none seem to have been converted. The British hardly received any M4A3s: US Army's preferred variant. I have seen some Fireflies with cast hull fronts; can't recall offhand whether they were M4A1s or M4s with the late composite hull - or both.

[magman2]

M4 composite Firefly

M4A4 Firefly

Net photos

[Radpoe Spitfire]

Thankyou both for that- just my curiousity for now.

Regards Adrian

[Paul Bradley]

Just out of curiosity, something that's always puzzled me ( a non-armour modeler) - how were the spare track links attached to the glacis plate? Particularly that top photo.

[magman2]

The tracks were held in place by holders, you can see at the bottom of the links in both photos.

they could be horizontal or vertical and some had both

[Paul Bradley]

Aaah - those metal bars, presumably welded in place. Thanks!

[louiex2]

Often spare track links were were welded on for extra armor protection. Here's site with some good information on the practice http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/vehicles/tanks/shermantank.htm

[SleeperService]

Hi Adrian

Just a cautionary note about the Firefly. The British had a designation for all the Sherman Marks as Firefly so you will find reference to a Sherman IIc (for example) quite often. The fact that the designation was allocated doesn't mean that any were made though. The information above is accurate.

There were (apparently) some Sherman Fireflies on the M4A3 hull built by/for US Forces. This is a bit of a contentious issue though....

So M4 welded, M4 Composite and M4A4 are your options in British service all with VVSS.

[Paul Bradley]

Often spare track links were were welded on for extra armor protection. Here's site with some good information on the practice http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/vehicles/tanks/shermantank.htm

Oooh, most useful - thanks!

[Red Dragon]

There were a number of M4A3's converted to Fireflie's by the U.S., Steve Zaloga has confirmed this. The term 'Firefly' seem's to have come into use post war, in service they tended to be called 'Sherman 17pdr', The same seems to apply to the 'Achilles', M10 17pdr.

British Fireflie's are,

M4 17pdr. Sherman Ic.

M4 17pdr. Composite hull Sherman Ic (Hybrid)

M4A4 17pdr. Sherman Vc.

Cheers

Phil

[SleeperService]

There were a number of M4A3's converted to Fireflie's by the U.S., Steve Zaloga has confirmed this. The term 'Firefly' seem's to have come into use post war, in service they tended to be called 'Sherman 17pdr', The same seems to apply to the 'Achilles', M10 17pdr.

British Fireflie's are,

Cheers

Phil

I wasn't aware of this so Thanks for the information Phil. If it was in a Military Modelling issue then I stopped getting that when it tried to reinvent itself.

Agree about the name, FWIW the term 'Archer' for the 'Valentine 17 pdr' seems to follow the same pattern.

This thread is one of the reasons I like Britmodeller!!

[Shermaniac]

Shermans:

M4 = Sherman I,

M4A1 = Sherman II,

M4A2 = Sherman III,

M4A3 = Sherman IV,

M4A4 = Sherman V

(All Hybrids remained designated as Sherman I)

There were then the suffixes to these designations:

a = standard gun tank as supplied (not used)

b = 105mm the howitzer version usually on Sherman I (M4 late) hulls in British service

c = 17pdr - we all know this one

The suffixes were attributed across all available types but were only used when a vehicle came into service

Shermans in British/Empire service were commonly Shermans: I (M4), I Hybrid (M4 composite) II (M4A1), III (M4A2) & V (M4A4)

The British Army rarely used the US designations when referring to US equipment

[Test Graham]

My understanding is that the M4A4 were preferred because of the extra length. Not quite sure why that helps, other than to distribute the load.

Be that as it may, the British Fireflies were all converted in the UK, whereas the M4A2 does not seem to have been seen there, or at least not commonly. Were all these sent to overseas forces and thus not available for Firelfy conversion?

[JackG]

According to British Tanks in Normandy by Ludovic Fortin, petrol based engines were preferred (opposed to diesel which was more prone to catching on fire). Also mentioned is the M4A1 unsuitable due to it's cast armour providing limited space for ammo stowage racks. The M4A2 itself had become scarce.

- I'm guessing at this point of the war, this last type mentioned was no longer being manufactured, and those still existing were in critical theater use and did not warrant being called back to the UK for refit?

regards,

Jack

[Test Graham]

Isn't that the wrong way round, with petrol having a lower flashpoint than diesel?

[SleeperService]

The Fortin book is very useful but there are a lot of errors in it unfortunately.

Petrol was the fuel of choice for front line formations to avoid duplicate supply chains being needed. Standardisation was the key in the Allied effort. In Italy diesel was more common as you are never far from the sea and Navies use diesel or bunker oil. So diesel Shermans in Italy were drawn from the US supply chain. In the UK most formations had vehicles through the British supply chain with a few diesels to make up the numbers.

Petrol has a lower flash point so Graham is correct. Fortin still repeats the belief that Sherman fires were caused by the petrol exploding. In fact this rarely happens, what did cause the fires was the ammunition storage so high in the hull and the extra crammed in where ever possible. The Germans were rigid in ammunition stowage and used petrol in their Panzers which rarely burned. Ironically the later wet stowage made little difference as tankers still over ammo'd their vehicles and thus negated the bins usefulness....

Very few diesels made it into the UK inventory and many of those that did were kept back in the UK. They just weren't available for conversion. There were requirements for specified equipment in the turret such as the traversing mechanism, M4A4s mostly met these specs and there were plenty of them. REME and others developed servicing and modification programmes which made the multi-bank engine very reliable so they were a good choice. The extra length was all behind the engine bulkhead so made no difference to the fighting compartment.

Mark Haywood's Sherman Firefly volume (still available from Barbarossa Books) goes into great detail about the whole programme and the reasons behind the decisions. Highly recommended!

[JackG]

Graham - hmm, that is an interesting point (i must have read something wrongly). So did some further digging, thinking maybe it had to do with when getting hit in combat. Apparently fuel itself wasn't the problem that caused Shermans to brew up, but rather the stowage of shells. Another found preferance for petrol engines was better performance - power to weight ratio?

regards,

Jack

edit - well Nick beat me to it, and even provided more info.

Edited September 22, 2013 by JackG

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I thought British & Commonwealth forces used the diesel engined M4A2 Sherman III in fairly larger numbers in NWE?

Here's Steve Zaloga's build of a US M4A3 Firefly (from Missing Lynx): http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/48/m4a3fireflysz48_1.html

That's one mean looking Sherman!

Edited September 22, 2013 by Sgt.Squarehead

[SleeperService]

I thought British & Commonwealth forces used the diesel engined M4A2 Sherman III in fairly larger numbers in NWE?

The comment is relative Sarge. There were very few compared to the huge mass of M4A4 Shermans. Still a lot though. Most of the M4A2s came through the US supply chain, best known example the French, who were equipped, supported by and under the 'guidance' of the US Army (I hesitate to say command).

Without digging out all my reference stuff I think the Independent armoured brigades could have M4A2 but the major units got M4A4. In all cases the Fireflies were M4A4 or M4 based. Which made maintenance and fuel supply interesting....

[Sgt.Squarehead]

My impression was that many units would prefer to use almost anything to an M4A4 because of the maintenance difficulties with the peculiar engine.....Never actually looked at the numbers, will have a pore through Hunnicutt.

EDIT - The numbers appear closer than you might expect (according to Armor At War - The British Sherman Tank):

Sherman III - 5033 Delivered

Sherman V - 7155 Delivered.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Sgt.Squarehead

[Red Dragon]

The numbers I have for Sherman's supplied to the UK are,

M4/M4A1 (Sherman I/II) 3128

M4 105mm (Sherman IB) 593

M4A1 76mm (Sherman IIA) 1330

M4A2 (Sherman III) 5048

M4A2 76mm (Sherman IIIA) 20

M4A4 (Sherman V) 7168

As close as to make no difference to the numbers quoted above.

Phil

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'm a bit surprised by your numbers for the Sherman IIa.....I thought it was an uncommon tank in UK service, only used in Italy (in the same role as the Firefly) IIRC?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

OK, here's the numbers for UK Shermans from Hunnicutt:

M4 - 2096

M4A1 - 942

M4A2 - 5041

M4A3 - 7

M4A4 - 7167

M4 (105) - 593

M4A1(76)W - 1330 (Wow.....We had loads of 'em, you were quite right! )

M4A2(76)W - 5

Edited September 23, 2013 by Sgt.Squarehead