Sir John Valentine Carden survives.

[Cryhavoc101]

Britain received ~17K M4s by the end of the war, and converted some 2.1K-2.2K to Fireflys, so 12.3%-13%.

The units in NW Europe among the Sherman Equipped Units of the 6 Armoured Divisions in 21st Army group had tank troops of 2 Firefly : 2 M4/75mm

Each Division would have 223 'Cruiser' tanks so at most there would be at most 1,333 Sherman's gun tanks in the front lines at any point (and 7th Armoured was Cromwell equipped and they were organised with 1 Firefly/Challenger per 3 Cromwell - and some units had entirely re-equipped with Comet by wars end so that number is possibly less than that)

This does not of course include Brigades etc - although most Brigades were Churchill tank equipped - nor does it include any SP AT units which are generally Royal Artillery Battery's with M10/Achilles or Archer.

So while certainly it was not 50% of Shermans under British ownership it was 50% at the pointy end in May 45

 

[Vhen]

Most of my sources suggest nominal troop strength was four tanks (3 for the command troop)

Ah, that must have been one of the differences in NZ's Armoured Brigade. They were running 3 tank troops with 1 Firefly and 2 Shermans.

 

[Thoresby]

The units in NW Europe among the Sherman Equipped Units of the 6 Armoured Divisions in 21st Army group had tank troops of 2 Firefly : 2 M4/75mm

I don't think they did, It varied from time to time and place to place but I'm pretty sure 4 tank troops with 1 Firefly and 3 ordinary Shermans was the default.

 

[Ramp-Rat]

Big Cats and Big Guns.

The British have through the good offices of their major armaments company Vickers, has developed a good medium tank gun, which right now is both capable of, destroying any German tank it meets, and chucking a decent HE round. Something to note, while the Germans will eventually produce TTL, equivalent of the Big Cats it developed IOTL. This gun while it might not firing its present ammunition, be able to go head to head with a big cat. It will still be able to take one out at close range, and from the flank or rear. And if a sabot round is developed for it, it like the 6 pounder might still be a useful weapon until the end of the war. As for what tank gun is developed to follow on from this gun, while the 17 pounder was by this time already under development, the British might given this guns existence, skip to the 20 pounder. As for the German Big Cats, they had been thinking about a heavy break through tank, like the Tiger, since before the outbreak of war. And having encountered problems with both French and British tanks, during the Battle of France, and even more problems with British tanks in North Africa. Are going to be looking at a number of solutions, such as better anti tank guns, self propelled anti tank guns, and a bigger tougher tank, able to go toe to toe, with the best that the British have. And once they encounter the T-34, and KV-1, Soviet tanks during the invasion of the Soviet Union, they are going to be looking for something to take them on. And so they will develop tanks similar to the Tiger and Panther OOTL, which will have similar problems to those of OTL. The two biggest problems being, that there are never enough of them, and the Germans don’t have the fuel they need even if they could produce more.

RR.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I don't think they did, It varied from time to time and place to place but I'm pretty sure 4 tank troops with 1 Firefly and 3 ordinary Shermans was the default.

Initially yes but that was due to the low numbers available with just 342 Sherman Fireflies delivered to 21st AG by 31st May 1944 - this being enough to provide the units involved in the early part of the Normandy campaign 1 Firefly per 4 tanks.

With larger delivery's of the type and a decent (read better) HE shell being developed the numbers existed for a 50:50 mix from late 44 onwards

 

[MarcH]

The 17 pounder is already under development ITTL. That has been mentioned in story. The requirement that the 17 pounder was designed with can not be met by the 75mm HV as it currently stands. That means the 17 pounder is going to happen. The AP performance of the 75mm HV is sufficiently low at present as to have no impact on the 17 pounder, at least in my view.

If the 75mm HV gets a boost in performance then maybe but it will have to be quite the boost.

 

[GrahamB]

I shall throw my disruptive hat in the 17pdr ring and say that the gun will see service TTL, but not in a tank. Towed AT gun? Yes, please. SP Gun? Likely. Tank gun? Not when there's at least one 'good enough' gun in the works and AT capacity is needed everywhere else.

I would not put it past the Aussies to try to fit a 17pdr (or 25pdr CS gun) in a Valiant turret during the Asia campaigns, although it will quickly be set aside as being too good for that theatre.

'What's this action report "Fired one round at first tank in column, third tank in column exploded"?'
'Yes sir, we recorded clean holes punched straight through the first two tanks before the round finally detonated in the third tank.'
'I see. What about the 25 pounder Private Edsel installed on C Unit?'
'Hard to tell, sir. They're still picking up the pieces of the tank he shot with it.'
'So it was effective?'
'Oh yes sir, but there's a betting pool on where the turret ended up.'

 

[Derek Pullem]

The 17 pounder is already under development ITTL. That has been mentioned in story. The requirement that the 17 pounder was designed with can not be met by the 75mm HV as it currently stands. That means the 17 pounder is going to happen. The AP performance of the 75mm HV is sufficiently low at present as to have no impact on the 17 pounder, at least in my view.

If the 75mm HV gets a boost in performance then maybe but it will have to be quite the boost.

Yeah - I'm not sure about that. The AP round for the 75 mm HV seems very lightweight at 12.5 lb. The Finns used a 14.3 lb round for their M1931 AA guns and the American M61/M72 for the M3 75mm was about the same weight (15 lb).

The US 76 mm gun should be a better comparator for the Vickers 75 mm HV. This didn't solve all the issues of the US 75mm but with the right ammo it was good enough against the big cats.

I agree the 17 pdr is better still but I doubt that it's a big enough improvement to replace the tank gun. As others have said it will get used in AT guns and TD (and possibly in a completely new tank but I suspect they may want to jump to a 84 mm / 20 pdr)

 

[ArtosStark]

Yeah - I'm not sure about that. The AP round for the 75 mm HV seems very lightweight at 12.5 lb. The Finns used a 14.3 lb round for their M1931 AA guns and the American M61/M72 for the M3 75mm was about the same weight (15 lb).

The US 76 mm gun should be a better comparator for the Vickers 75 mm HV. This didn't solve all the issues of the US 75mm but with the right ammo it was good enough against the big cats.

I agree the 17 pdr is better still but I doubt that it's a big enough improvement to replace the tank gun. As others have said it will get used in AT guns and TD (and possibly in a completely new tank but I suspect they may want to jump to a 84 mm / 20 pdr)

Tank Guns and AT guns are diverging paths ITTL. The 2 pounder was universal but tanks are being equipped with the L43 6 Pounder to allow the ROF to focus production of the L50 model for the artillery. Since Vickers is developing their own AT gun for the Tanks, and the 17 Pounder is coming along with better absolute performance, I think it is likely that the ROF continues to focus on the Artillery and Vickers continues to focus on the Tanks, though with technical understanding likely passing between them. The Vickers gun is not, IMO, going to have enough of a lead in either delivery date or performance to force the cancellation of the 17-pounder.

 

[yulzari]

Although the HV 75mm is not a 17 Pounder equivalent it will be the standard across the board so everyone will have a better than QF75 instead of some IOTL having best and most having worst. Perhaps having a ‘good‘ in every encounter will be better than ‘best‘ only sometimes? As a 77mm equivalent it would allow an accurate enough APDS at the somewhat less than 17 Pounder velocity.

As a trooper in the AH thread I would want the best gun in the best hull and I want it now. But, from the big picture POV, the same ‘adequate‘ all round will do better. With simpler production and logistics to have the same kit at a good level with one tank design, one gun and use the same ammunition etc. The aim is to win the overall war, not each duel.

However, the thread is in the capable hands of the OP and I await their progress across the campaigns.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

There were some 342 Fireflys available by D-Day, equipped at a ratio of 1:3.

Is that not exactly what I said earlier today?

However by the end of the war the Sherman units were at a ratio of 2:2

 

[MattII]

Is that not exactly what I said earlier today?

However by the end of the war the Sherman units were at a ratio of 2:2

Yeah, I missed that on first viewing. However, the switch was almost certainly based on the development of an acceptable HE shell, rather than the number of vehicles available.

 

[Ginggwar]

There is an excellent thread on ARRSE about tank on tank action in 1944/45

German Wündertanks vs Shermans

So, the accepted myth is the poor old 75mm Sherman was inferior to a MkIV, had no chance against a Panther, and was just a range target for a Tiger… A busy day in the life of a 75mm Sherman troop…

www.arrse.co.uk

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Yeah, I missed that on first viewing. However, the switch was almost certainly based on the development of an acceptable HE shell, rather than the number of vehicles available.

Yes that was my understanding

 

[Icedaemon]

Even accounting for the big cats showing up at some point in the future, even if a Victor is not on par with a Tiger one-on-one, it does seem not unlikely that there will be several Victors fighting each Tiger. While throwing men at a problem heedless of casualties is not in the preferred tactics table of the British Army playbook, it might have to do if there's no real push for a British heavy tank.

 

[MattII]

Even accounting for the big cats showing up at some point in the future, even if a Victor is not on par with a Tiger one-on-one, it does seem not unlikely that there will be several Victors fighting each Tiger. While throwing men at a problem heedless of casualties is not in the preferred tactics table of the British Army playbook, it might have to do if there's no real push for a British heavy tank.

The more likely comparison is between the Victor and the Panther. in terms or armour and firepower, that's likely to favour the Panther, but I suspect reliability will favour the Victor.

 

[GrahamB]

it does seem not unlikely that there will be several Victors fighting each Tiger.

1:1 fights between tanks means that something has gone terribly wrong with your planning, or you're playing a video game. 3:1 or better is the preferred engagement, regardless of what you're driving.

 

[Vhen]

The more likely comparison is between the Victor and the Panther. in terms or armour and firepower, that's likely to favour the Panther, but I suspect reliability will favour the Victor.

Of course by that point... the HE shell on the Victor might just shatter the Panther's armour plate anyway. Because late war German armour plate is brittle as hell.

 

[CV(N)-6]

Of course by that point... the HE shell on the Victor might just shatter the Panther's armour plate anyway. Because late war German armour plate is brittle as hell.

But but something something superior German steel!

 

[MattII]

Of course by that point... the HE shell on the Victor might just shatter the Panther's armour plate anyway. Because late war German armour plate is brittle as hell.

And if not, I'm sure a shaped-charge shell will go through.