Jump to content


The US Army Tests Firefly


  • Please log in to reply
238 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #1 Posted Jan 13 2014 - 17:53

    Military Specialist

  • Military Specialist
  • 4895 battles
  • 7,169
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

 

There are various stories going around about how the US Army was foolish for not either buying 17pr guns from the British to implement into their M4s, or, if British and Canadian production wasn’t up to it, simply building the guns themselves. However, almost all the documentation on the matter is either speculative or unscientific. It seems to be rather difficult to find an honest, objective assessment of the various options of tank armament to replace the 75mm. The commonly referred to tests conducted in Europe in the Summer of 1944 (See US Guns German Armor Part 1) were generally not very scientific “Let’s lob a few rounds at these Panthers we found and see what happens” type tests, and almost entirely focused on penetration characteristics which generally resulted in “17 pr may be somewhat better, but there is no practical achievement from that better” (i.e couldn’t reliably kill a Panther from the front any more than anything else)

 

Of course, there is far more to a proper, thorough test of a weapon system than field tests, and those tests are conducted at proving grounds. A review of such a more comprehensive series of tests may at least provide some understanding of US Army thinking on the matter, and if the US Army’s testing was valid, may allow one to consider the commonly heard refrain that Firefly Sherman was Best Sherman during the war.

 

A Firefly turret was made available to the United States Ordnance Department during the winter of 1943-44 and was tested at the Aberdeen Proving Ground against the 90mm Gun, M3, which at that time was emerging at the armament for Gun Motor Carriage M36, and was later to be mounted on Heavy Tank, T26E1 (the predecessor of Medium Tank, M26). As a result of these trials, the 17-pounder gun was considered by the Ordnance Department to be generally inferior to the 90mm gun.

 

Of course, that’s not entirely a fair test. The 90mm gun was being put into use as a tank destroyer, and in the next generation tank. But Firefly was being made to put the gun into the current generation tank.  As a result, more testing would be required to find out just how good a solution it would be for Sherman compared to the route chosen by US Army Ordnance. It was also only a test by the Ordnance folks, not the end users. Shortly after the war ended Army Ground Forces instructed that such a test take place, although supply issues (not least the delivery of several hundred rounds of British ammunition) resulted in the testing in Fort Knox by Armored Force and Tank Destroyer Board not being complete and written up until August of 1946. By this stage, of course, there was no longer any question of if the Firefly should be considered as a useful variant of M4 for acquisition; these were to be tests more focused on design features and its utility as an overall system to determine future tank design philosophy.

 

 

The vehicle as tested was the installation of the imported M4 17pr MkVII turret onto a standard M4A3 VVSS hull, so not a true Firefly conversion, but issues such as hull stowage were not really part of the tests and the merits of keeping the fifth crewman and bow gun were not debated. Three tank configurations were compared: The Firefly turret was compared with the M4(76) and M26.

 

The installations were comparatively rated on 21 characteristics. (If you are surprised by this number, ask yourself why. You think there isn’t something more to a tank gun than simply how accurate it is, how fast it shoots, and how much damage it does on the other end?) The report is quite long, so we’ll cover some of them in this article, and the rest over the next couple of weeks.

 

Without further ado, let’s go through the tests in the sequence as they appear.

 

Test 1: Handling and Loading Ammunition.

The rounds used, left to right: 76mm HVAP, HE, APC. 17pr SVDS, APC, HE, APCBC, 90mm HVAP, HE, APC.

 

Although the 17pr rounds are far from the longest, they are almost as wide as the 90mm rounds, making them the middleweight of the three. HE shells for the 76mm/17pr/90mm were 22.23/34.2/42.04 pounds, with the APC rounds at 24.8/37.5/43.87 and the supervelocity ammo being 18.9/28.41/36.25. Though the 17pr ammo was in excess of the proscribed US Army standards of the maximum weight a 3” caliber round should be, it wasn’t by much and the report noted that the round was not difficult to handle.

 

The problem of course is that handling the round isn’t the only issue. As the report stated:

Loading must be considered from the standpoint not only of weight and length of the round, but also loader’s working space. This space in the 17-pounder gun turret is particularly restricted, inasmuch as the loader must guide the projectile into the cutaway portion of the breech ring by movement in a horizontal plane in order for the base of the round to clear the rear of the recoil guard. In medium tank M26, the loader not being restricted by the recoil guard, is able to approach the breech with more latitude.[…] The advantage in weight and length of round of 17-pounder ammunition about equals the advantage of better working space in the 90mm gun turret, it is therefore concluded that ease of loading is substantially the same for both. In Medium Tank M4A3 with 76mm Gun M1A2, the advantage in weight and length of round, together with ample working space for the loader make ease of loading superior to the other two tanks

 

Loading 17-pounder

After trying a few loaders out, with times varying from 1.1 seconds (standing, round in hand) to 3.2 seconds (standing, round on floor) to get an average and to find the best loader, they tried for a ‘mad minute’. The crew were able to fire 8 rounds in 44 seconds.  The report notes, however, that “The 17-pounder gun rate of ten rounds per minute, computed from the actual firing of 8 rounds in 44 seconds, should be qualified by the understanding that this was done by a man of exceptional skill and that for the average man the rate will be nearer to 8 rounds per minute”. It also points out that as the Sherman VC ready rack only holds five rounds, such a rate is also unlikely. Further, it was also considered to be faster than the TC and gunner could sense and correct rounds at ranges under 2,000 yards. The 90mm was rated at 8rpm, (with ten ready rounds), and the M4(76) at 20rpm, although with only 6 ready rounds.
 
Certainly a tight fit between the recoil guard, turret ring and back wall.
 

Test 2: Dispersion.

 

The purpose of this test was “to test the dispersion of various types of 17-pounder ammunition at ranges from 500 to 2,000 yards, and to compare the result with similar data computed from 76mm and 90mm ammunition"

 

This was done by setting up 6’x6’ canvas panels at 500 yard intervals, and firing ten-round groups at them. 

APCBC at 500 yards.

 

Then they tried APCBC at 1,000 yards.

 

This successfully completed, they went back to the 500 yard target and fired SVDS.

 

Results were rated "poor", with 8 rounds on target, and two sensed as being about 36” below the panel, but for the purposes of calculation they were presumed to have the same average deflection as the 8 rounds that were on target. Overall deflection was 2.35mil, 4.34mil elevation, with means of 0.5mil and 0.92mil respectively.

 

Then they tried at 1,000 yards. After firing 18 rounds trying to register, (Successive rounds with the same sight picture were observed as over, left, short)  they decided to abandon further testing of the round except for armour penetration.

 

After firing the 28 rounds SVDS, they decided to go back to APCBC. However, the SVDS rounds had left duralumin fouling in the gun tube, and so before resuming the dispersion testing at range, they fired ten rounds of HE and then ten rounds of APCBC through the tube for the obscuration tests to clean it out. Given the observed results of the grouping (see “Phase B, below), they went back and fired another ten rounds of HE and APCBC. After the 40 rounds had been fired (Phase D), it was considered that the tube had returned to normal, (albeit at apparently a new zero) and the accuracy testing continued at 1,500 yards after an adjustment on the sights on a clean zero panel.

 

 

Figures for 1,500 yards and 2,000 yards were as follows. It is interesting to note that the size of the shot group was, in real terms, about the same as that at 1,000 yards, with a substantial increase at 2,000 yards. No explanation for this is offered in the report (It just reports test reports, not theories!), but the obvious thought from my unitiated mind is an oscillating trajectory caused by an unstable round which happens to have a wavelength which 'zeros' at about 1,500 yards. Of course, this is speculation on my part.

 

 

So, the average at all ranges was calculated to be 7.38mil/7.58mil overall, and means of .189mil and .205mil. The testing complete, they then dug into the records to find the test results of 90mm and 76mm guns.

 

Mean dispersions for deflection and elevation were .115mil/.142mil for the 90mm and .112 and .110 for the 76mm respectively.

 It was thus concluded that a “comparison of data shows that the 17pounder gun has greater dispersion than either the 90mm gun or the 76mm gun

 

 

That's plenty for part 1, so we'll return to these tests at a future point.



jncjr232 #2 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 13:18

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 33574 battles
  • 454
  • [-FU-] -FU-
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

that second pic with the shells if you look at it fast looks like that 1 inch 2 inch 3 inch the you see the brick in back. kind of messes with you're eyes a little. other than that was really cool to read most of it.

edit: sweet first one to post 


Edited by jncjr232, Jan 18 2014 - 13:26.


SGTChucklez #3 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 13:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 5631 battles
  • 906
  • [MS1] MS1
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012
Good read. Now put it in game.

shazwanbomer #4 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 13:53

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 8790 battles
  • 364
  • [AMPED] AMPED
  • Member since:
    11-30-2011
Been waiting for this tank to be in the game..

Xlucine #5 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 15:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 7502 battles
  • 7,138
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
That US modified sherman would make a good premium.

Hristosko #6 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 16:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 10652 battles
  • 3,691
  • Member since:
    05-05-2011

Isn`t the 90mm gun the same as the Hellcat`s(if so, I`d love to see the same gun on an M4), and did the 17 pdr use 83mm shells(the ones we bought thousands of HE shells for only to sell them for profit) ?

 

But the most important question:Who the hell is Bob ?


Edited by Hristosko, Jan 18 2014 - 16:11.


Ray_Charles_xxx #7 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 16:26

    Private

  • Players
  • 7922 battles
  • 1
  • [S8B] S8B
  • Member since:
    01-05-2013

View PostSGTChucklez, on Jan 18 2014 - 13:35, said:

Good read. Now put it in game.


+10...   Even more so, implement the original British Firefly, as a Brit medium (premium?)...

 

Seriously though - this has been asked for by the community for a LONG time, with much more interest than many other tanks...


Edited by Ray_Charles_xxx, Jan 18 2014 - 16:28.


Dominatus #8 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 17:12

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10076 battles
  • 12,326
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010

View PostHristosko, on Jan 18 2014 - 10:10, said:

Isn`t the 90mm gun the same as the Hellcat`s(if so, I`d love to see the same gun on an M4), and did the 17 pdr use 83mm shells(the ones we bought thousands of HE shells for only to sell them for profit) ?

 

But the most important question:Who the hell is Bob ?

90mm M3 is indeed on the Hellcat (in-game, IRL only had it experimentally), M36, and M26. The 17pdr was a 76mm gun, you're thinking of the 20pdr. Bob stands for "Bright Orange Button".



SMScannonfodder #9 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 17:26

    Major

  • Players
  • 19741 battles
  • 2,470
  • [-S-A] -S-A
  • Member since:
    04-29-2011
Thanks for the great read Chief

Excelray1 #10 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 17:38

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 8894 battles
  • 230
  • [KURO] KURO
  • Member since:
    10-19-2012

Interesting read....

 

Also as above, when should we expect to see the firefly as a in-game tank?

 

Another premium tank suggestions would be for a M4 Sherman lend-lease as a tier 5 Chinese Premium tank.

 

http://www.wwiivehic...-sherman-01.jpg

 

And perhaps a soviet leased T-26 Light as a tier 2 premium tank?

 

http://www.wwiivehic...26-light-01.jpg

 

Note the Chinese nationalist party decal on the side.

 

This should give Chinese tank players more and cheaper options for crew training and money making.


Edited by Excelray1, Jan 18 2014 - 17:38.


Starne #11 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 17:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 7396 battles
  • 4,188
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostExcelray1, on Jan 18 2014 - 11:38, said:

And perhaps a soviet leased T-26 Light as a tier 2 premium tank?

 

http://www.wwiivehic...26-light-01.jpg

 

Note the Chinese nationalist party decal on the side.

 

This should give Chinese tank players more and cheaper options for crew training and money making.

Unfortunately, the Chinese tree already has a T-26. Kind of. The tier 2 Vickers Mk. E with the T-26 turret and 45mm gun is essentially a T-26, with the only difference between the two being 10 hitpoints, and 30 horsepower, due to the Vickers not getting access to the 130 horsepower T-26F engine. That said, it's fair to say that an ingame Vickers Mk. E with the right module setup is a T-26.

 

 

With that out of the way, good read as always, Chief. Looking forward to the next part.

 

I knew that the 17pdr had a very large round, but I wouldn't have thought was almost the same size as the 90mm round.


Edited by Starne, Jan 18 2014 - 17:59.


minim8greyhound #12 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 18:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 9907 battles
  • 1,319
  • [_SOC_] _SOC_
  • Member since:
    07-01-2011

M4 Firefly, would make a great USA or British Tier 6 premium.

 

It would offer gameplay similar to the Panzer IV S.tolen. 

But It would have more of a "punch"/alpha damage and most likely a slower ROF. Probably would be a tad slower than an m4 as well.

 I would recommend giving it limited MM.

 

I also look forward to them implementing this in-game. Come on Chieftan, bother the employees at WG for us and get this tank implemented! :blinky:



1Sherman #13 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 18:14

    Major

  • Players
  • 3750 battles
  • 2,165
  • Member since:
    07-10-2013

I have 2 things to say:

1: This one goes out to the Wargaming people. WHEN IS THE FIREFLY GOING TO BE PUT INTO THE GAME?! Just put the damn thing in as a tier 6 British premium and give it the same 17-pounder as the TOG and we'll be happy.

2: This is my opinion. I personally think that the Americans should've put Ordnance QF 17-pounders on their Shermans. It would have made the tank able to compete with the heavy German armour like Panthers, Tigers, and Tiger II's when they came up against them ever so periodically, something the regular Shermans had a hard time doing.



UmamiSalami #14 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 18:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17313 battles
  • 65
  • [AURUM] AURUM
  • Member since:
    12-12-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 13 2014 - 16:53, said:

...but the obvious thought from my unitiated mind is an oscillating trajectory caused by an unstable round which happens to have a wavelength which 'zeros' at about 1,500 yards. Of course, this is speculation on my part.

 

Can you elaborate more on the physics behind this? How can a trajectory oscillate?



badmonkey59 #15 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 18:35

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22299 battles
  • 674
  • [-LEG-] -LEG-
  • Member since:
    05-15-2011

View PostHristosko, on Jan 18 2014 - 09:10, said:

Isn`t the 90mm gun the same as the Hellcat`s(if so, I`d love to see the same gun on an M4), and did the 17 pdr use 83mm shells(the ones we bought thousands of HE shells for only to sell them for profit) ?

 

But the most important question:Who the hell is Bob ?


Bob's your uncle.



Walter_Sobchak #16 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 19:17

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 3,673
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

Very interesting.  When I was a kid, my dad took me to Aberdeen proving grounds to see all the tanks there.  I still have a stack of photos from that trip.  I remember there was a sherman tank there with a firefly turret, but it was not the firefly hull.  It still had the hull machine gun and it looked like a regular M4 hull.  Early three piece transmission cover and small driver hatches.  Therefore, its not the vehicle used in this test, since the picture in the report is of a later model M4A3 hull.  Any idea on what the Aberdeen "firefly" is and what has become of it?

 

 



I_WILL_KILL_YOU8 #17 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 19:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4601 battles
  • 112
  • [ARMDA] ARMDA
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012
The Sherman Firefly was a flippin British modified M4 not U.S modified. Anyway, I have wanted both the M3 Grant and the M4 Sherman Firefly in the British tree. We have British lend-lease tanks in the Russian tree, why cant we have the Grant and the Firefly in the U.K tree? I ought to put up that suggestion so that the devs can see.

KrasnayaZvezda #18 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 19:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10225 battles
  • 2,393
  • Member since:
    07-18-2010

View PostI_WILL_KILL_YOU8, on Jan 18 2014 - 13:26, said:

The Sherman Firefly was a flippin British modified M4 not U.S modified. Anyway, I have wanted both the M3 Grant and the M4 Sherman Firefly in the British tree. We have British lend-lease tanks in the Russian tree, why cant we have the Grant and the Firefly in the U.K tree? I ought to put up that suggestion so that the devs can see.

 

Both of them have been under development for some time, Grant was even modeled well before the release of UK tree.

 



Potoroo #19 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 20:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 16592 battles
  • 3,495
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011
For WoT purposes I'm more interested in the 17-pdr versus the American 76mm guns rather than the 90mm.  WG has the 17-pdr's accuracy at either 0.34 or 0.32 whereas the 76M1A1 is 0.43 and the 76M1A2 is 0.4 -- but the dispersion tests indicate the American 76s were in fact more accurate, right?

jeffreyhowell45 #20 Posted Jan 18 2014 - 20:13

    Private

  • Players
  • 13312 battles
  • 1
  • [11_TH] 11_TH
  • Member since:
    02-12-2012

Wargaming. WHEN IS THE FIREFLY GOING TO BE PUT INTO THE GAME?!

Make it a premium and I'll buy it!  Sooner than later please!






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users