Firefly development

Hi all,

After posting about Major George Brighty and getting some help I thought I should post something about general development of the Firefly. I know there is a thread about restrictions on the conversion as well.

In Mark Hayward's book he writes (p13) that on 7 Oct 1943 VCIGS wrote that "We are trying to get a 17-pdr into a Sherman and it looks promising." Hayward mentions the following people as important

"Key players"
- the Director of the RAC, General Briggs
- Director General of AFVs, Claude Gibb

"Key engineers"
- Lt Col G Witheridge
- Major G Brighty
- Mr W Kilbourn of Vickers

"Brighty had trialed a 17-pdr in a Sherman in a fixed mount similar to later German experiments in Jadgpanzers in which the mount transferred recoil forces to the whole tank. It worked, but was not a safe solution in the longer term."

He then gives credit to Kilbourne for "most of the innovations that distinguish a Firefly from a standard Sherman."

By mid-December 1943 things were well underway and on 6 Jan 1944 apparently "successful investigations have been carried out."

I'm going to stop there because perhaps there is new information that has come to light since Hayward wrote his book (2001!).

 

I have given up reading other people's interpretations of what or who might have done or said what.

Easier to use source material from the online Canadian archives to support my research.

Tim

 

My understanding it that the person most responsible for the Firefly concept was George MacLeod Ross, during his first period with the BAS technical staff in the USA. Brighty was a member of the Fighting Equipment team in Ross's prior role at the DTD, and was based at Larkhill, although I *think* Brighty spent a bit of time in the US under Ross. Ross thought that Claude Gibb had taken all the credit that was due to him for the Firefly and became so difficult for Gibb to work with that he was sent back to the USA. This was a repeat of Ross's behaviour with 'Q' Martel, Alexander Davidson, Oliver Lucas and W.A. Robotham, and I think that he was basically psychologically unbalanced, and wasn't helped by E.M.C. Clarke egging him on from the sidelines. This is also why a lot of Ross's work does not appear in official documents, as he seems to have been a bit of an embarrassment in not being able to hold back his views.

I know where Ross's notes are from his US years, and one day will get hold of them, but it isn't very high on my priorities at the moment.

 

Are you just deliberately trying to give offense? I don't see another reason for you to make this post.

 

Not intended to offend - perhaps I didnt word this well.

My personal observation from reading copious quantities of Firefly related material is that I find that the source material often provides a far better insight into why things on the Firefly are as they are. Hence I tend these days to look at original source data. For instance, I recently received as a gift a copy of "Sherman Firefly -v- Tiger", sadly containing errors which make me then doubt the accuracy of the material I am less familiar with, so I tent to stick to the material written at the time, the technical reports and memos.

My interest though is maybe very different from the majority here as I am trying to ensure I reassemble some 30,000 pieces of Sherman VC correctly to a particular time period based on the known history for the vehicle, and perhaps I will never get the level of detail I need from any academic publication to do that.

 

Thanks Tim Any offence felt is gone, and your comments are very interesting.

As a side note I would say there is an issue with the history of other British tank development in which certain canards get repeated even though their truth is somewhat questionable. I think Don Juan can speak to that!

 

My favourites

"The firefly is just a normal Sherman with a 17pdr gun stuck in sideways".

"There are 3 versions... the VC, IC and IC Hybrid"...

Whereas the reality is that almost every component inside the Firefly is bespoke or has been modified in some way and the components installed depend entirely on when during the Firefly's evolution that specific vehicle was converted, at which particular tank factory and then the particular unit it served with and the theatre.

From personal observation, no two firefly are the same.

 

The biggest irony is that the tank wasn't even called the "Firefly" and the Army prohibited the use of this name.

 

There is that too, "Sherman C Tanks" being more correct, identifying main armament as 17pdr, with a prefix of V or I reflecting the tank.

I've not seen a single official document which references "Firefly", yet it is now accepted as the common name.

 

I'm a 'Firefly' name sceptic too. However, there is a wartime document, unit level, using the term Firefly. It may have been on here somewhere. The implication being it was in general use. I copied it *somewhere*.....

 

The re-evaluation of knowledge as new primary evidence challenges, often hard worked out, hypothesis is inevitable in historical research. Especially so when it has become embedded in secondary sources. So long as we are open minded enought not to cling to things dogmatically (and not fall out) we can enjoy moving things on
(after all, we're not archaeologists ).

 

No, but vehicle research and restoration comes close.

I've been excavating Sherman Firefly wrecks, and photographing complete ones all over the world. Then studying the artefacts found and physical remains photographed to allow me to reconstruct one.

Tim

 

It would be great to see that document if you happen to locate it. Thanks

 

The term "Firefly" / Fireflies occurs in the SRY War Diaries...

5th The main party returned from Fabius. A party was sent as 1st Line reinforcements to 265 Fwd. Del. Sqn. “A” Sqn Fireflies went for a shoot at Lulworth.
6th Both A/A tanks are now evacuated to Bde W/Shps. Capt. J.A. Gauntley may be away indefinitely as it now appears he is suffering from appendicitis, but Major R.S. Melthorpe returned during the day.
Conference of I.O.’s at Bde during the afternoon.
A Court of Inquiry was opened on the 2 damaged A/A tanks (4th/7th D/G Lines) but was adjourned.
7th Voluntary C. of E. Service in the Village Parish Church. An R.C. Service was held in the Sgts Mess for the repose of the soul of the late Tpr Williams (3660376).
Lt. F. Bridges left us to join 1st Line Reinforcements at 265 Fwd Dly Sqn.
“A” Sqn returned from their “Firefly” Shoot + 2/Lt. R Holman returned with the final Fabius party.
A lorry was sent to Donnington Staffs to collect urgent D.D. spares.

Oddly, the 24L by contrast refer to their "Mayfly" / "Mayflies"... ;-)



...as well as their "Fireflies".

 

Very interesting - thanks.

Perhaps "Mayflies" to avoid confusion with a certain Aircraft? I guess we are unlikely to find out the answer to that one.

What date are these extracts from please?

Cheers

Tim

 

May 1944. I guess in the case of the 24L "May" might have been an influence. I'd say though that neither term appears commonly used by them, the tendency varies, with Sherman V and 17 pdr used far more commonly and... Firefly / Mayfly more of an afterthought, acquired "nickname" I suppose.

"Tanks - 24 L will be using this units Sherman V (c ). “A” Sqn will share with 4/7 D.G. Tanks remain on the range pending further instructions."

Edit - Nb. There's also some further snippets here from a few other Regimental War Diaries, some of which are earlier, March, April 1944 etc.

Testing the Firefly...

 

Did the SRY and 24L collect their 17-pr equipments directly from the factories?

Although I've not looked at the detail for a while, 7 Armd Div units record collecting theirs from the works and call them Firefly and Mayfly from the start. DJ has confirmed that the names aren't MoS designations for the vehicles. My working hypothesis has always been that they relate to the conversion kits, but never got any further than that with it. Though that hax just made me think of one 'new' source to check...

 

The Firefly and Mayfly did exist. The Firefly was a Humber Armoured Car fitted with a 6 pounder gun for the Airborne role, and the Mayfly was a Morris Light Recce Car fitted with a 6 pounder for the same purpose. They were conceived by Claude Gibb during the second half of 1942 to be carried in the Hamilcar glider and give Airborne troops a mobile anti-tank equipment. Both names are essentially puns, if you think about them for a moment.

How these names got confused with the Sherman and M10 17 pounder conversions the Lord only knows, but the RAC's Director, Raymond Briggs, expressly forbade the use of these terms in regard to the latter vehicles in one of his monthly liaison letters prior to D-Day. There really never was a "Sherman Firefly".

 

I should add that it was Chris C who discovered Raymond Briggs' prohibition of the term "Firefly" regarding the Sherman, not myself.

 

This article also mentions "Woodcock"... as a possible early name...

https://tankhistoria.com/wwii/firefly/

From memory, they were "received" rather than "collected" by the SRY and 24L. I do have some references for the 4th7thRDG too, and it's tricky though as they arrived piecemeal, in batches and some might have been collected. Nothing is particularly clear given that they didn't necessarily train in the ones that they individually were to use. Keith Douglas gets a mention dealing with packing trials on the new ones that the SRY had. Given that they were "Top Secret" - I did wonder if the name Sherman 17-pdr wasn't "a bit of a give away" ;-) and Firefly itself a bit close to the mark.

Edit : #23 The Firefly: The Teapot With Teeth. | The Sherman Tank Site