Sherman Firefly Most Underrated Tank Of The War

[Wolfkin]

Hello!

I have been researching WWII for almost 13 years now. Most sources always mention how good the German Tiger and Panther tanks were, how good the Soviet T34 was and so on. Very few sources mention the Sherman Firefly.

It is my opinion that the Sherman Firefly could very well be the most underrated tank of the war. It had the 17 pounder gun which was just as good as the Tiger's and Panther's gun. It had the mechanical reliability of the Sherman tank, something the German tanks did not have. The T34 did have good reliability but the Sherman was just as good.

So, I wonder why this vehicle is not mentioned too much? Is it because it was only used by Canadian, British and Polish forces? Is it because, in the same way that the Canadian Forces are largely unrecognized in some respects, that vehicles used by the Canadians could very well recieve the same lack of attention?

Looking for any comments, feedback and such!

Cheers,

Wolfkin

AKA

Jon Fitzgerald
Calgary,AB,Canada

[Tony Smith]

The new Zealanders in Italy often felt uneasy crewing the Firefly because the Allied Air Forces (I did'nt say the Americans ) were given a quick method of identifying Allied/German tanks. All Allied tanks:- the gun barrel does'nt protrude past the front of the tank, All German tanks:- the gun barrel overhangs the front of the tank. Therefore if it has a gun barrel overhanging the glacis, shoot it up. This is probably a handy guide if you are skimming over rooftops in a fighter plane and only have milliseconds to recognise a target, but does'nt apply to a Firefly, or indeed the profusion of German self-propelled artillery and assualt guns with short barrels.
Obviously, the small numbers of Fireflies on the ground in that theatre were not enough to create an exception to the rule, or to generate a reputation for themselves as fine AFV's.

Originally posted by Wolfkin
It had the 17 pounder gun which was just as good as the Tiger's and Panther's gun.

Well. . . . . . .The 17pdr wasn't without its troubles. There was never really an effective HE round for the gun and so Fireflies were fielded with 2 - 5 regular Shermans to protect them from enemy troops! (usually hiding in a building with an AT gun or Panzerfaust)

There were quite desperate problems initially with the solid shot that often didn't penetrate where a 2pdr would, but shattered on impact and the accuracy of the sabot ammunition; this was indeed very powerful if only you could hit something with it.

These problems were overcome, but almost too little too late.

Of course the enemy knew well what the Firefly could do and so it was the prime target, I would suspect the Firefly crew knew this too. . . . . . . . . . . Allied command was well aware and had various camo schemes to attempt to disguise the long 17pdr barrel, plus the idea of a short dummy barrel on the turret rear with the real one being less obvious depressed over the engine deck; all very well but the gun is then never pointing anywhere near the desired direction.

Received wisdom suggests the Firefly A57 multi-bank to be the best of the engines of the period; certainly Chrysler seemed to prove this on extended endurance tests where only a change to the exhaust valve material was needed to ice the cake as it were.

However, I would imagine when it does have a minor fault, the very nature of 30 cylinders to isolate and diagnose was a nightmare.

For whatever reason the Americans chose not to operate the A57 but rather to donate it to the British and others.

Hanno and Adrian B are our Sherman men, perhaps they can add some insight and corrections.

R.

[Hanno Spoelstra]

Originally posted by FV623
Allied command was well aware and had various camo schemes to attempt to disguise the long 17pdr barrel, plus the idea of a short dummy barrel on the turret rear with the real one being less obvious depressed over the engine deck; all very well but the gun is then never pointing anywhere near the desired direction.

Richard is a man of wide reading so there´s no insight or corrections to add, really.
"Camouflage of 17-pr Gun Mounted in Sherman Tank" might be of interest and is readily available contrary to other sources on the subject.

And yes, I agree with Jon: the Firefly could very well be the most underrated tank of the war. For eaxmple, the late-war Sherman with the American 76mm gun was equal to the much higher acclaimed T34/85, better in fact with well-trained crews as it proved during the Korean War.

H.

[Wolfkin]

Hello all!

Thank you all for your reponses! This gives me some more facts to think about regarding the Sherman Firefly. I guess it seems that every weapon/vehicle might have had a few cons to go with the pros, the Sherman Firefly no exception. Thank you again!

Cheers,

Jon Fitzgerald
Calgary,AB,Canada

Originally posted by Hanno Spoelstra
And yes, I agree with Jon: the Firefly could very well be the most underrated tank of the war.

And I would agree, even with the transient shortcomings. I wonder how different the whole scenario might have been without them and the ultimately effective 17pdr, even Wehrmacht vets with experience of the famous "88" recognise and respect the 17pdr, some would even credit it with an edge over the 88 in some engagements.

R.

[John McGillivray]

There was a “documentary” on the Discovery Channel some time ago, in which they were comparing the Sherman to the Tiger. In it they mentioned the Firefly and gave some details about it, but then dismissed it as being unimportant because the Americans did not use it.

From the American point of view in Normandy, the Tiger was not important. They never encountered any. The Americans did not lose a single tank or man to Tigers in Normandy. Come to think of it, the Americans did not fight very many German tanks in Normandy.

It was the British, Canadians and Poles who engaged and defeated the bulk of the German Armour in Normandy. Fortunately they were the best equipped to deal with it..

[Crewman]

Hello Wolfkin!

Originally posted by Wolfkin
Sherman Firefly Most Underrated Tank Of The War

I would not say…
Of course, to some extent maybe this is public relations problem, the Firefly is not 506th PIR Band of Brothers with its own historiography and filmography but on the other hand it would be hard to find bad opinion about the Fireflies.

Originally posted by Wolfkin
So, I wonder why this vehicle is not mentioned too much? Is it because it was only used by Canadian, British and Polish forces? Is it because, in the same way that the Canadian Forces are largely unrecognized in some respects, that vehicles used by the Canadians could very well receive the same lack of attention?

I think that this opinion may be much closer of reality. The market of militaria, books, magazines, movies etc is dominated by the US Army and its history and the Firefly belongs to other story.

Originally posted by John McGillivray
It was the British, Canadians and Poles who engaged and defeated the bulk of the German Armour in Normandy. Fortunately they were the best equipped to deal with it..

I agree with John. The Polish tankers preferred the Cromwells than Shermans but I have never met bad Polish opinion about the Fireflies. If memory serves only one Polish veteran wrote sarcastic comment towards the Firefly but in such cases I tell: "My dear, take/buy/make/capture/organize yourself better tank for your personal fights or write Memorandum to Government for better tanks for your unit". I do not like the comments separated from industrial and battlefield reality and circumstances.

Best regards

C.

[Wolfkin]

Hello John and Crewman!

I agree with your comments about the U.S. forces receiving too much attention and the British, Canadian and Polish forces not receiving enough. This is true for many sources.

They completely ignore the fact that the British, Canadian and Polish forces engaged the major bulk of the German Army in Normandy. Then these same sources have the gall to say that the British, Canadian and Polish forces could not break out, that the U.S. Forces did this. They ignore the fact that it was offensives launched by the British, Canadian and Polish forces that diverted German attention which gave the U.S. Forces the chance to break out.

Of course, we know this but many sources think that the U.S. engaged the bulk of the German Army in Normandy, a German Army which was equipped entirely with Tiger Tanks, Burp Guns, 88's and SS troopers! : :

Cheers,

Jon Fitzgerald
Calgary,AB,Canada

Originally posted by Wolfkin
Hello John and Crewman!

I agree with your comments about the U.S. forces receiving too much attention and the British, Canadian and Polish forces not receiving enough. This is true for many sources.

They ignore the fact that it was offensives launched by the British, Canadian and Polish forces that diverted German attention which gave the U.S. Forces the chance to break out.

How refreshing that some people have understood the true situation through obvious personal diligence and acumen, and have not been biased by the Hollywood "documentary" machine.



R.

[Wolfkin]

Hello!

Thank you for the compliments!

When it comes to research, I always try to look at as many sources as possible about a subject and then cross-reference, compare, contrast and then form my own opinion. One of my favourite things to say to people sometimes is that they should learn to differentiate between sources of entertainment and sources of information. But, to no avail sometimes, as many people still feel the need to educate themselves with the television! : :

Cheers,

Jon Fitzgerald
Calgary,AB,Canada