92 replies to this topic

[Maf4gaf0_BR]

I think it's good idia to the Firefly to start with a 75mm, and then get the 17pdr (probably with something(s) betwhen then).
Because as far as I know T-34-85 never mounted 76mm, and the AMX 13 90, starts with 75.

[Smedlee]

The base M4A3E8 does not have the Ford engine.  It was not an  M4A3E8  without the Ford.

[Eshaiya]

American Tank, British Gun

[JagdTiger23]

YakolevSoyuz, on Jul 16 2012 - 01:39, said:

American Tank, British Gun

The 17 QF pdr was the best gun of the allies in ww2.

[razielkaine]

it was the best put into the service unfortunately they had others that they overlooked for service as AT weapons the worst being the 3.7 inch AA gun of which they had an abundance of pre war and would have put the german 88 to shame if it had been deployed as a main AT gun and on tanks. ( I believe the canadians modified some rams with the gun and i think its actually the 32 pounder on the tortoise)

http://en.wikipedia....3.7_inch_AA_gun

[maxman1]

Maf4gaf0_BR, on Jul 10 2012 - 23:35, said:

I think it's good idia to the Firefly to start with a 75mm, and then get the 17pdr (probably with something(s) betwhen then).
Because as far as I know T-34-85 never mounted 76mm, and the AMX 13 90, starts with 75.

No, it's not. The Firefly was only ever armed witht he 17 Pounder. That was part of the modification process.

A Sherman not armed with a 17 Pounder is not a Firefly.

[OseanTanker]

From what i know about the firefly, it was a British tank destroyer.  I know it is an M4 base but it was not used as a medium tank, it was used more as a TD which is where i hope to see this tank not the Medium line.  Also, its not american, it is british or commonwealth which ever you want to call it.

[razielkaine]

it was a medium tank fitted with a bigger gun thats all.  The thing is the firefly was not just built with tank hunting in mind but also and general duties that would be called for.  the example being the archer which had the sole purpose of killing tanks with the same gun that made it a td.

[trowzerkoff]

razielkaine, on Jul 16 2012 - 05:56, said:

it was the best put into the service unfortunately they had others that they overlooked for service as AT weapons the worst being the 3.7 inch AA gun of which they had an abundance of pre war and would have put the german 88 to shame if it had been deployed as a main AT gun and on tanks. ( I believe the canadians modified some rams with the gun and i think its actually the 32 pounder on the tortoise)

http://en.wikipedia....3.7_inch_AA_gun

Agreed.  The 3.7" was easily on a par with the famous German 88 and superior in some performance respects.  

Why it was never allocated a dual AA and AT role has a lot to do with the fact that it was designated a Heavy AA gun which was the responsibility of Anti Aircraft Command whilst anti-tank guns were embedded into line infantry brigades.  HAA guns were regarded as "strategic" assets to be deployed behind the front line covering facilities such as ports, railway junctions, depots, urban areas and operationally significant locations [e.g. road passes] that would be natural targets for high level bombers.  HAA was thus not a "front line" resource - like AT guns.

Interestingly I once had the chance to speak to a chap who was a Major in the Royal Artillery in the Western Desert.  He said that active consideration was given to putting the 3.7 into an AT role [thus aping the German's use of the 88] but that the idea was nixed for the following reasons:
1. The split command structure mentioned above.  AA Command didn't want to give them up [especially as there were relatively few given the number of defensive tasks on hand] and the infantry didn't really want them as the guns and their crews were neither designed nor trained for AT work.
2. The guns had no direct fire sights.  They were dedicated high altitude AA firing shells with time and distance bursting fuses.
3. The guns had no suitable ammunition.
4. The guns were huge and difficult to conceal.  When fired horizontally the amount of dust and smoke thrown up was prodigious making counter-battery work easy for the enemy.

Nevertheless there were occasions when the 3.7 was pressed into service as an AT gun.  One notable instance was during the attack on Tobruk.  During the German break through a couple of 3.7's found themselves in the front line - but the lack of the aforementioned DF sights meant that their effectiveness against small targets was little more than guesswork and sighting down the barrel through an open breech.

[Kyphe]

OseanTanker, on Jul 20 2012 - 20:03, said:

From what i know about the firefly, it was a British tank destroyer.  I know it is an M4 base but it was not used as a medium tank, it was used more as a TD which is where i hope to see this tank not the Medium line.  Also, its not american, it is british or commonwealth which ever you want to call it.

firefly was never used as a tank destroyer, that job was for the Achilles m10 17pdr variant, birtish had no TD doctrin at all, that was solely an American concept, brits had tanks and SPGs, american TDs were classed as spgs and used by the artillery regiments in the specialist anti armor role.

OH and you do know that TDs in game get put a tier up in terms of matchmaking? so you want this tank to be ruined completely by being classed as a TD

[Kyphe]

trowzerkoff, on Jul 21 2012 - 21:42, said:

Agreed.  The 3.7" was easily on a par with the famous German 88 and superior in some performance respects.  

Why it was never allocated a dual AA and AT role has a lot to do with the fact that it was designated a Heavy AA gun which was the responsibility of Anti Aircraft Command whilst anti-tank guns were embedded into line infantry brigades.  HAA guns were regarded as "strategic" assets to be deployed behind the front line covering facilities such as ports, railway junctions, depots, urban areas and operationally significant locations [e.g. road passes] that would be natural targets for high level bombers.  HAA was thus not a "front line" resource - like AT guns.

Interestingly I once had the chance to speak to a chap who was a Major in the Royal Artillery in the Western Desert.  He said that active consideration was given to putting the 3.7 into an AT role [thus aping the German's use of the 88] but that the idea was nixed for the following reasons:
1. The split command structure mentioned above.  AA Command didn't want to give them up [especially as there were relatively few given the number of defensive tasks on hand] and the infantry didn't really want them as the guns and their crews were neither designed nor trained for AT work.
2. The guns had no direct fire sights.  They were dedicated high altitude AA firing shells with time and distance bursting fuses.
3. The guns had no suitable ammunition.
4. The guns were huge and difficult to conceal.  When fired horizontally the amount of dust and smoke thrown up was prodigious making counter-battery work easy for the enemy.

Nevertheless there were occasions when the 3.7 was pressed into service as an AT gun.  One notable instance was during the attack on Tobruk.  During the German break through a couple of 3.7's found themselves in the front line - but the lack of the aforementioned DF sights meant that their effectiveness against small targets was little more than guesswork and sighting down the barrel through an open breech.

the 3.7 was not used extensively for the anti tank role as it weighed TWICE that of a german 88, yet many had their sights modified for direct fire given the shortage of primary anti tank guns available in north Africa.

the reason is that as a SPECIALIST anti air gun is designed with a heavy durable barrel that can take prolonged bouts of rapid fire without over heating distorting or blowing up, the german 88 was lighter so as to be more mobile which suited the Germans offensive tactical and strategic requirements whilst accepting a much reduced barrel life.


the usage of the 3.7in gun in a primary anti armor role was stopped after the fielding of the 17pdr.

Edited by Kyphe, Aug 10 2012 - 20:10.

[KnightFandragon]

FR4NCH3K, on Mar 30 2012 - 19:16, said:

This thread reminded me of Company of Heros, which reminded me of the Kangaroo Carrier, which will probably be the tier 10 heavy for the British tree.

Kangaroo Carrier with 2 Squads of Piat Commandos?  Lolz...BEST TIER 10 EVAR!  Though, I never did do that in CoH...heard it was OP as hell though.

As for the Firefly, it might be the British tank I get and dork around in..especially if it gets the 17lber, the 17lber rocks and the Firefly gets in T6 MMs like the Easy 8.  Shermans are cool in this game, lets see if the Firefly keeps that trend going.

Edited by KnightFandragon, Aug 13 2012 - 16:44.

[razielkaine]

use to love 1 bren group an Lt and 2 piat in a kangaroo. wasted KT's so easily, major lol's. especially when pinning made the tank completely useless (was a time the tank would disappear in fog of war)  

and of course it will get the 17lb without it then its just a lame arsed sherman.

Edited by razielkaine, Aug 13 2012 - 17:30.