Re Shermans/Firefly

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

Condor Legion RE:Michael Wittmann 4/25/2003 6:18:44 PM

No complaints or judgements about any of the previously posted posts...But... Bruce Quarrie's book, "Hitlers Teutonic Knights" (1987) pg 33-38 states that "Wittmann himself was killed shortly afterwards when his own Tiger was surrounded by five Allied Shermans. His body lay in an unmarked grave until 1983 when it was reinterred with proper military honors in the cemetery at La Cambe." Clearly SS Leibstandarte Division was facing British 7th Armored Division at the time, but Quarrie was reluctant (in 1987) to identify which smaller unit actually killed Wittmann and I've often wondered why, if not for the obvious difficulties involved in "who shot who" post any battle. Otherwise it's a very good book on the SS armored divisions in WW2, chock full of rare photos, including of Wittmann, his crew, and his Tiger... OPERATION GOODWOOD, CL

Quote Reply

Vark RE:Michael Wittmann 4/28/2003 2:11:26 PM

Although Gary Simpson's book is riddled with grammatical errors and spelling disasters i.e. "Russian Navel troops " sic (obviously no stomach for a fight hehehehe) he does give the best account of the destruction of Wittmanns Tiger. As I wasn't there, more's the pity, I can only state what my opinion is. The German explanation of a shell/rocket suffers from usual problem of the Germanic instance that any of their aces can never be killed by the same weapon system they are operating. Thus Red Baron shot down by AA not another pilot, Wittmann etc. As for being surrounded by 5 Shermans I wonder if a commander of such apparent repute commanding four Tigers would allow himself to get into such a situation? If you see photos of the wreck it is in open fields broken by tree lined roads and small hedges. Again if anyone has any info to shed anymore light on the issue please reply.

Quote Reply

Maple Leaf RE:Michael Wittmann 5/19/2003 2:15:28 PM

I did a little more research after reading the different versions presented here. On June 10, 1944 Wittmann was engaged with tanks of the British 7th Armoured Division near Villers-Bocage. It appears to be the 4th County of London Yeomanry regiment in Cromwell tanks. Wittmann destroyed the 4 tanks of the regimental headquarters and then ambushed their lead squadron. When the Germans withdrew to rearm and refuel, the British recovered. When Wittmann came forward into the village later in the afternoon his tank was hit by an anti-tank gun and blew a track. The British had already lost 27 tanks and withdrew as well. Wittmann and his crew escaped unharmed. On August 7th, 1944 during Operation Totalize II Canadian Corps of the First Canadian Army aimed at Falaise. Five Sherman tanks of an unknown Canadian regiment of the 4th Canadian Armoured Division engaged Wittmann's tank at close range and destroyed it, killing Wittmann and his crew. I tend to believe this account, primarily because it comes from a British book. You would think they would try to take credit for the kill if there was any doubt.

Quote Reply

Dillon RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 7/3/2003 3:42:25 AM

Thought I'd drop back to the original thread. The Firefly was the second allied tank to mount the 17 pounder. The first was the Australian AC4 which was faster (33%), better armoured, and had a greater operational range (200%). It was also shorter so less of a target to AT guns. Unfortunately the project was dropped in favour of mass-produced Shermans.

Quote Reply

MikkoL RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 7/3/2003 8:19:24 AM

The australian AC4 was purely a prototype-only, but the brits also produced the Challenger before Firefly appeared. If I remember right there were also other experimental tanks with 17pdrs during -43, but I can't recall which one(s) were used for that. Can search it out somewhere though...

Quote Reply

Dillon RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 7/3/2003 8:55:56 PM

Tests on the 17 pounder in the AC hull were started in January 1943. The British Ministry of Supply were still arguing whether the 17 pdr could be put into a medium tank-sized hull when they were shown designs and photos of the successfully test-fired AC4. Although still only a prototype, the AC4 had been ordered by the Australian army in mid 1943 before being cancelled under US pressure due to conflicting resource use demands. In comparision with the Challenger, the AC4 was faster (the Challenger's advantage over the Firefly), and had better sloped and generally as thick or thicker armour (except for the mantlet). The AC4 armour was also cast, giving it greater strength. The AC4 was lower and very stable - both crtiticisms that had been levelled at the Challenger. An impressive tank for a country that had only started building tanks (the AC1, forerunners to the AC4) in 1940. I'd be interested to know of the other experiments with the 17 pder in 1943. Cheers.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 7/4/2003 1:38:34 AM

I think there was versions of all the UK tanks tried with the 17pnd most failed or were cancelled due to pressure on the supply of what tanks were already in production. Dont forget thet the UK was under a siege mentality untill late 43 early 44, one which meant making do with what we had. Germany tried to go the other route prior to kursk developing new better tanks instead of building more inferior ones. look what happed there.

Quote Reply

husky65 RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 9/14/2003 10:49:34 PM

"Firefly was a brilliant improvisation by the British. " Based on the brilliant work of the Australians. The Brit experts believed that it was impossible to fit a 17pdr into a Sherman sized turret until they were shown photos and plans of how the Australians had already done it in the AC3 'Thunderbolt'.

Quote Reply

oldbutnotwise RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 9/15/2003 1:35:45 AM

the problem was not fitting the gun in the turret but the size of the turret ring which limits the turret size, otherwise you make the turret bigger a la AC4 which had a bigger diameter turret ring so accomadating the 17pndr resonably easily. the solution to the sherman/firefly was to turn the gun on its side this allowed it to be mounted further forward then they moved the radio equipment to a big on the back of the turret which gave space to load and for the guns recoil, although i believe it made the gunners job hell as it seriously reduced the space he had. another problem the firefly had was that with a crew member less it was a lot more tiring to operrate than a convemtional sherman

Quote Reply

husky65 RE:Re Shermans/Firefly 9/15/2003 5:32:25 AM

It was the Australian firm of Ruwolts that developed the recoil system that allowed the fitting of the 17 Pdr in the Firefly. Sir Cluade Gibb, who was DG of research and development in the AFV division, and who later became DG of AFV, was insistant that it could be done (fitting a 17 Pdr in a Sherman), but he experianced a great deal of opposition... His answer was that it had been done by the Australians.

Quote Reply

1 2