This is what Naomi SHOULD be operating in Girls und Panzer! +1
6 Likes
more shermans… i don’t know, +1 i guess.
2 Likes
Which one’s your source for this?
Was hoping this would get suggested sooner or later. +1 Since this specific vehicle was ultimately just a testbed, I’d like to see it as an event vehicle or premium with one of the standardized production variants being available in a more permanent way.
Would this go between the m4/T26 and the the 76mm armed Sherman’s or somewhere else?
It should definitely an event vehicle, not tech tree.
+1 just need ammunition sources.
1 Like
Why would you ever want a unique vehicle like this as event?
Besides, this was accepted for service and would provide unique gameplay for the US tree which is literally just 76 mm at ~5.3 BR aside from the rare 90 mm and 75 mm.
There’s also plenty of other vehicles that would fit better as an event, even from the US Firefly variants like the VVSS variant…
+1 I need this and M4A3 75mm as soon as possible!
Squadron vehicle!
Also where the hell did you find a picture of this? I’ve only ever seen the one of the M22 in the foreground and a bunch of M4A3 Fireflies in the background
2 Likes
I believe it would just be assuming that because they were converted in 1945, half a year post-APDS introduction, and because the Americans were searching for an improved anti-tank capability, which would’ve been provided by APDS, that they would have at least been given some.
It seems reasonable to me.
Edit: looked for 17pdr APDS info
References
WW2Equipment - 17pdr
BOCN - 17pdr APDS
The-Eye - M4 (76mm) Sherman Medium Tank (Pg. 11)
WW2Aircraft - Availability of 6pdr Sabot, test
Penetration ability against sloped plate, in this case 17pdr against the 80mm thick glacis plate of a Panther:
(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this test with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated…
…
“6. Conclusions
a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.
b. That the 76mm APC, M62 is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor because of its inferior penetration.
c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.”
According to that last one, US Army tested the 17pdr with APDS in 1944. PDF above says they also tested it, but I didn’t see specific mention of APDS during my skim-read.
3 Likes
I don’t have documentation for the crews in the Balleroy test, but the Firefly crew in the 30 August 1944 Isigny test was British and did fire APDS.
The 17pdr was never used in combat by US forces, only being evaluated a handful of times. To add a vehicle like this either as Tech Tree or Premium would be anachronistic.
It should be limited by being Event, same as other similar vehicles.
1 Like
I would prefer squadron personally because it was evaluated and “officially used,” as well as the total conversions numbering more than a single digit (imo what would be good for a premium or event, see F-20 or TCM AGS).
Also, the US doesn’t have a squadron tank at around Rank 3. Could fit very nicely.
6 Likes
Comes from this article written by WoT: https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/part-iii-the-us-army-tests-the-firefly-article-by-world-of-tanks.html. It’s unsourced and uncaptioned (so in hindsight, maybe not the most trustworthy source), but the file name calls it an “M4A3 VVSS 17pdr”, and the appearance (large hatch, no side applique armour) seems to agree.
1 Like
+1
They should call it M4A3 Firefly
Would make a great squadron, event, GE prem or BP addition. I don’t think it should be TT tho
If we’re going by British naming it should be Sherman IVC. If American then M4A3 (76) W HVSS. Though it can be (17pdr)
It would be Sherman IVC but it wasn’t British. At this point it would be American. It would probably be correct to call it “M4A3 (17pdr)”. M4A3(76)W was reserved for the ones with the M1 cannon, but “M4A3(76)W (17pdr)” might be valid too. However, given that “Firefly” was never official yet a widespread nickname, and also that these M4A3s never got a real name, I think “M4A3 Firefly” would be fine.
Unless they change the OG Firefly to read Sherman VC instead of Sherman Firefly, I personally would rather see M4A3 Firefly.
5 Likes