Sherman Firefly - the tank and how best to use it etc

Cutting relevant to post #31

Kyle



Nottingham Evening Post
03 March 1999

Medals in exhibition devoted to heroics
By TIM UTTON
WARTIME medals won by a Notts regiment hero have been donated to an exhibition devoted to the courage of its soldiers. Sergeant Stan Nesling, of the Sher-wood Rangers Yeomanry, won the Distinguished Conduct Medal for his bravery during fierce fighting as the Allied Forces pushed through Belgium in 1944. The medal, along with four others won for his war service, is now part of the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry museum in Carlton after it was presented by Sergeant Nesling's widow, Ida. Mrs Nesling said: "He was quite modest about the medal. "I remember he came home on leave once and said there was a rumour going round that he might get a medal. "I said: 'Now what have you been up to?' "All he said was there had been a 'little to-do' in Gheel. "His friends used to say Stan's not got one guardian angel — he's got a whole squadron of them." Sgt Nesling, who died last year aged 87, gained the Distinguished Conduct Medal after courageous action as a tank commander in action in 1944. His unit was the first to go through the , centre of Gheel, at the north end of a bridge-head over the Albert Canal, on September 11, supporting the Durham Light Infantry. Sergeant Nesling's citation gives details of his bravery after two of the three 17-pounder tanks in his troop were knocked out by German fire. The citation said: "Sergeant Nesling made a plan to deal with this bazooka patrol. "He dismounted and stalked the enemy with his Bren gun, giving orders to his gunner to cover him from the tank. "He eventually sighted the enemy position, opened fire with his Bren gun, wound-ed the section leader and killed several others. The remainder fled in disorder. "He then proceeded to clear the rest of the street on foot with his Bren gun. He remained at the north end of the village for the rest of the day and in spite of numerous attempts on the part of the German infantry, he prevented them from entering from the north end of the village. "His complete disregard for his personal safety aroused the admiration of, and inspired confidence in, all those under his command during a critical period." Mrs Nesling said: "People used to say `You wouldn't think it to look at him', because he had worn glasses since he was a child and thought he would end up working as an Army clerk when he was called up. "But to him there was no other regiment but the Sherwoods." After the war Sgt Nesling and his wife settled in Middlesex. He worked for British Rail. The couple had one daughter.

 

Unfortunately -

There's a strange moment about "how the 24th Lancers did things" - at around 36m 50s in...



...where Adrian Goldsworthy says - "I wasn't able to find out how they (the 24L) did things" - regarding how the 24L allotted their Firefly tanks - i.e. either one per troop or troops of three. Whereas he nevertheless states that the 4/7th & the SRY had their Fireflies "in troops of three".

Odd - as I would have thought that it would have been quite easy whilst researching via google or getting hold (somehow) of a copy of "None Had Lances" or again via forums or social media to find this out.

It's quite uncanny - given that Adrian Goldsworthy must have had so many sources that he could use for research.

 

From wiki:
"Adrian Keith Goldsworthy (born 1969) is a British historian and novelist who specialises in ancient Roman history."
Adrian Goldsworthy - Wikipedia

As far as I could find, the Sherman Firefly was not part of ancient Rome's military arsenal...

I guess specialists should keep to their specialty

 

There is something a tad similar here -

(267) Operation Dauntless - Tutorial 8 - 24th Lancers vs HJs Finest - YouTube



Although - this comment on it (below) - albeit from (now) 5 years ago - could have been corrected...



I do find it curious how it seems that one of the - so often - repeated "facts" about the use of the Firefly is almost always that "it was used as one Firefly per troop" - it seems to get repeated again and again - generally without citing sources - or rationale - and appears as such in modern "games" - wargaming scenarios and probably would be shown that way in films or TV series - perhaps because in depictions - where vehicles have to be sourced - it would just be easier to not have to have three Fireflies.

The Firefly - also - I think seemed to have been the Troop Sergeants tank - rather than the lead - i.e. officer's - and would have "hung-back" rather than "going first" into situations - but having any hard and fast rules always seem to be conflicted by a very wide variety of ways that things could be done.

It seems to be said now that one per troop was the best way to do things - without - showing the working out. The 24L had thought it through and decided that Firefly troops were the way to go, and it seems to have been the 8th Armoured Brigades "way" - until it wasn't - so that bit of their history is interesting - and shouldn't be forgotten. Also when and why things changed is now - seemingly lost - like so much of the history - and it must fast be approaching a time when it will become easier just to go along with it and keep it simple without working it out.

 

There's an introduction to the novel here...



...and I would say that thought had gone into it and that it had been thoroughly researched by a well known historian, I don't think he says whether or not he also sought advice and assistance from those more versed in WW2 tank combat in the Normandy area, he surely knows individuals he could have approached there, however the Firefly comment - particularly as regards the use of Fireflies by the 24L - was what struck me as hard to comprehend.

A good argument could perhaps be made as to questions now as to how the 24L used their Fireflies at Rauray - for example - which he says he took as the basis for some of his fictional account of the fighting there, given that the 24L's Fireflies might not seem to have featured much there - perhaps due to depleted 24L Firefly numbers - the 24L might even had been reduced to placing the few that they still had as "one per troop".



The account of the fighting at Rauray -

24th Lancers, M4 vs Panthers. Rauray 1/7/44

And -



...is very specific...

 

Via current AI - re. how the British Fireflies were used in the British tank troops...

It is a common point of confusion because British tank troop (platoon) structures changed significantly as the war progressed. The short answer is that the availability of the tanks and the specific stage of the campaign (1944 vs. 1945) were the primary deciding factors.

Here is the breakdown of how and why these formations changed.

1. The Standard: 3 Shermans + 1 Firefly (June 1944)

At the time of the D-Day landings, the goal of the British Army was to have one Firefly per troop. A standard British armoured troop consisted of four tanks. Because the Firefly was a converted Sherman with a massive 17-pounder gun, it was seen as a specialized "sniper" or "tank-killer" to support the three standard Shermans (which carried 75mm guns better suited for high-explosive shells against infantry).

The Logic: The 75mm Shermans handled the "general work," while the Firefly stayed back to deal with heavy German armour like Tigers and Panthers.

The Reality: Due to production delays, some troops landed in Normandy with no Fireflies at all, while others had to "pool" them at the squadron level.

2. The Transition: 2 Shermans + 2 Fireflies (Late 1944)

As production increased throughout the autumn of 1944, the British began to increase the ratio. The loss rate of standard Shermans was high, and the threat of heavy German tanks remained constant.

Many units moved to a 2+2 split (two 75mm Shermans and two Fireflies). This allowed the troop to split into two "sections," each with one heavy hitter and one general-purpose tank.

3. The "All-Firefly" Troop (1945)

By the end of the war in Europe (early 1945), production had finally caught up with demand. In several elite divisions, the goal shifted to having every tank in the troop be a Firefly.

Why three? In the final months of the war, personnel shortages were a major issue. Many British tank troops were reduced from four tanks down to three.

The Result: If a troop was reduced to three tanks and the supply of 17-pounders was high, you would often see a troop consisting of three Fireflies.



The "Special" Cases

It is worth noting that the 3-tank Firefly troop wasn't always a choice of luxury. Sometimes it was a result of "battlefield attrition." If a troop of four lost two tanks in a skirmish and the only available replacements from the REME (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) workshops were Fireflies, the troop leader took whatever arrived.

Note on Tactics: Even when a troop had multiple Fireflies, they often tried to hide them. Commanders knew the Germans would target the long-barrelled tanks first, so Fireflies often had the front half of their barrels painted with "counter-shading" to make them look like short 75mm guns from a distance.

AND

During the Second World War, the composition of a British tank troop was rarely a matter of "preference" and almost always a matter of availability and doctrine evolution.

While the Firefly was a lethal tank-killer, it was produced in limited numbers compared to the standard 75mm Sherman.

Here is a breakdown of what determined the troop structure.

1. The Timeline of Availability

The most significant factor was simply how many Fireflies had rolled off the conversion lines.

Early 1944 (The Goal): The War Office ideally wanted one Firefly per troop (a 1-to-3 ratio).

D-Day to July 1944: Most troops consisted of one Firefly and three 75mm Shermans (a 4-tank troop).

Late 1944 to 1945: As production increased and losses of 75mm tanks mounted, many units moved toward a two Firefly and two 75mm Sherman split, or even the "3-tank troop" model you mentioned.

2. The Shift to 3-Tank Troops

The specific "3-tank troop" configuration (typically one Firefly and two 75mm Shermans) usually occurred for two reasons:

Attrition: In heavy fighting (like Operation Bluecoat or the Reichswald), units often lost tanks faster than replacements arrived. Instead of having one full troop and one "empty" troop, commanders would reorganize survivors into 3-tank elements.

Tactical Flexibility: Some commanders found that a 4-tank troop was cumbersome in tight bocage or urban environments. A 3-tank troop was easier to hide and manoeuvre, provided the Firefly was protected.


Why they weren't grouped: If a troop consisted only of Fireflies, they would be incredibly vulnerable to German anti-tank guns and infantry (Panzerfausts). They lacked the effective High Explosive shells and the bow machine gun needed to "soften up" soft targets. The 75mm Shermans acted as the "shotgun" and protection for the Firefly’s "sniper rifle."


4. Tactical Doctrine: "The Sting in the Tail"
The Firefly was considered the "capital ship" of the troop. Because it was the only tank capable of reliably penetrating a Tiger or Panther at range, it was usually positioned at the rear of the formation.

If a troop of four tanks encountered a German heavy tank:

1. The three 75mm Shermans would use smoke shells to blind the German gunner.
2. The 75mm tanks would provide suppressive fire to keep the German crew's "heads down."
3. The Firefly would then move to a flanking position or a "hull-down" spot to deliver the killing blow with its 17-pounder gun.

Note on Visibility: German tankers quickly learned to identify the Firefly by its exceptionally long barrel. To counter this, British crews often painted counter-shading camouflage on the middle of the barrel to make it appear shorter, mimicking a standard 75mm Sherman.


Summary

• 1 Firefly + 3 Shermans: The standard "full strength" organization for most of the North-West Europe campaign.
• 1 Firefly + 2 Shermans: A common "depleted" or "light" organization used when tank numbers were low or terrain was restrictive.
• 3 Fireflies in a troop: Almost never happened intentionally, as it left the unit without effective HE support or anti-infantry capabilities.

 

My opinion is that AI should be banned from this forum, if only because it is not human.

If we start posting results obtained via AI, this forum will soon degenerate from fact-based, referenced research to whatever the web says about whatever. A kind of WW2 twatter or fb, of which there are already too many.

If one wants to know what AI says, I believe forum members are clever enough to do it themselves.

Michel