Lert's honest Firefly review!

PolkCorp, on Dec 22 2014 - 22:18, said: Isn't that why the Brits developed it... to have a Sherman with more pen?


ledhed14, on Dec 22 2014 - 21:08, said: It was UK answer to Panther and Tiger . One allotment to each Tank platoon , its dedicated Tank Destroyer . Unlike US with dedicated TD battalions this made much more sense and worked very well . Because of this many US tankers died as the US military UNLIKE with the air force , didn't copy the effort despite its potential because "they"  didn't think of it therefor it couldnt be very good.. ..Army with its stupidity on tanks such as not rushing Pershings into service ( NOT PATTON' S DECISION ) And the US Navy insisting their torpedo worked , thus killing many members of the Navy and Air service .  Same with decision not to use 20 mm cannon and many many more .  Canadians did very well with this Hybrid of a Sherman with an actual Gun that would work in the field against realistic tanks . Many were up-armored with applique up to limits of the suspension .   I would love to read a book written by British on these tanks , google is not very helpful.


agamemnon_b5, on Dec 23 2014 - 13:06, said:   1) not true.  There was experienced gain by the fighting in North Africa, Sicily and Italy.  The Sherman was barely adequate against the Panzer IV and inadequate against the Panther and Tiger.  The General I command of the Armor Branch (for procurement and tactics and what not) refused a large scale change in tactics and equipment (not to mention completely ignoring British experience even though they had been fighting the Germans much longer).   2) Also not true.  The Wolverine and Hellcat were well in service by D-Day, so the logistical chain for 76mm ammunition was already there.  APCBC ammo wasn't the problem, it was the shortage of HVAP ammo with tungsten cores that was the issue.   4) Ports had nothing to do with the Pershing (hell, the British were offloading Churchills on the beachhead).  The thing just wasn't ready yet since it had a low priority.   5) that has nothing to do with the fact that a tank with a 90mm gun anti-tank gun, fR better than the majority Sherman's with 75mm howitzers, was not given priority until Eisenhower had to step in.   6) And yet the Americans were able to introduce the M36 in that timespan.  You "Logistically unsupportable" argument makes no sense.


120mm_he, on Dec 23 2014 - 17:36, said:   It's workable but its basically a bastardized achilles which actually has the hull soft stat performance to leverage the 17pdr to best effect.   Wg trolled us hard on this one.