_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Allied - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Allied forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Firefly question
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Saturday, July 02, 2016 - 09:18 PM UTC
M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work (on mantlet, new gun barrel, enlarged turret bustle, blanked-off bow MG, etc., etc.) would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD (which was slightly more greenish). I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources. (M4's in British service in North Africa were repainted sand colors, but generally only to the bottoms of the sponsons; lower hulls were usually left OD - although a white counter-shading was sometimes employed). Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)? If so, any surviving Firefly's into 1945, and after paint fading, would the two colors have shown a marked difference - British OD to a greenish hue, and US OD to a brownish hue?
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 01:55 AM UTC

Quoted Text

M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work (on mantlet, new gun barrel, enlarged turret bustle, blanked-off bow MG, etc., etc.) would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD (which was slightly more greenish). I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources. (M4's in British service in North Africa were repainted sand colors, but generally only to the bottoms of the sponsons; lower hulls were usually left OD - although a white counter-shading was sometimes employed). Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)? If so, any surviving Firefly's into 1945, and after paint fading, would the two colors have shown a marked difference - British OD to a greenish hue, and US OD to a brownish hue?



a similar thought hit me about two weeks ago, and here's why.

I have several Sherman books from various sources. I found this one that seems to cover all of them from the prototype to the M4a6. The book deals a lot with manufacturing, and I saw this one photo of two M4 turrets mounted on a very large indexing table that was mounted to an even larger boring mill. The turret closest to the camera was a Firefly turret! Not even the slightest doubt about it! Can't remember the exact plant location, but seems like it was either Michigan or maybe Ohio in the USA. This tells me that they wouldn't ship a primer painted turret to England for assembly as it would likely be a ball of rust. Plus it would have been much easier to simply install the turret on a hull during assembly. Then they just had to seal off the back opening (radios), and paint the tank.
gary
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 02:30 AM UTC
Wasn't all the conversion work done in England?
ALBOWIE
Visit this Community
New South Wales, Australia
Joined: February 28, 2006
KitMaker: 1,605 posts
Armorama: 1,565 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 04:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work (on mantlet, new gun barrel, enlarged turret bustle, blanked-off bow MG, etc., etc.) would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD (which was slightly more greenish). I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources. (M4's in British service in North Africa were repainted sand colors, but generally only to the bottoms of the sponsons; lower hulls were usually left OD - although a white counter-shading was sometimes employed). Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)? If so, any surviving Firefly's into 1945, and after paint fading, would the two colors have shown a marked difference - British OD to a greenish hue, and US OD to a brownish hue?



a similar thought hit me about two weeks ago, and here's why.

I have several Sherman books from various sources. I found this one that seems to cover all of them from the prototype to the M4a6. The book deals a lot with manufacturing, and I saw this one photo of two M4 turrets mounted on a very large indexing table that was mounted to an even larger boring mill. The turret closest to the camera was a Firefly turret! Not even the slightest doubt about it! Can't remember the exact plant location, but seems like it was either Michigan or maybe Ohio in the USA. This tells me that they wouldn't ship a primer painted turret to England for assembly as it would likely be a ball of rust. Plus it would have been much easier to simply install the turret on a hull during assembly. Then they just had to seal off the back opening (radios), and paint the tank.
gary




The Firefly Turrets were converted in the UK and not manufactured in the US so this is more than likely a HB turret with a Loaders hatch, does your photo have a cutout in the bustle and a Radio box installed? Can you indicate the name of the book please.


As to the original I thought that this had been laid to bed many years ago and the whole vehicle was resprayed. I am pretty sure that Shane Lovell unearthed the Instructions covering this one and posted it on ML many years ago.

Al
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 05:13 AM UTC

Quoted Text

This tells me that they wouldn't ship a primer painted turret to England for assembly as it would likely be a ball of rust.



The purpose of primer is to PREVENT rust so that your "ball of rust" would not happen. I suspect that you might be wrong about either the location of the photo of the Firefly turret, or in the identification of it, as conversion work was done at Vickers (according to some sources).
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 08:47 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work (on mantlet, new gun barrel, enlarged turret bustle, blanked-off bow MG, etc., etc.) would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD (which was slightly more greenish). I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources. (M4's in British service in North Africa were repainted sand colors, but generally only to the bottoms of the sponsons; lower hulls were usually left OD - although a white counter-shading was sometimes employed). Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)? If so, any surviving Firefly's into 1945, and after paint fading, would the two colors have shown a marked difference - British OD to a greenish hue, and US OD to a brownish hue?



a similar thought hit me about two weeks ago, and here's why.

I have several Sherman books from various sources. I found this one that seems to cover all of them from the prototype to the M4a6. The book deals a lot with manufacturing, and I saw this one photo of two M4 turrets mounted on a very large indexing table that was mounted to an even larger boring mill. The turret closest to the camera was a Firefly turret! Not even the slightest doubt about it! Can't remember the exact plant location, but seems like it was either Michigan or maybe Ohio in the USA. This tells me that they wouldn't ship a primer painted turret to England for assembly as it would likely be a ball of rust. Plus it would have been much easier to simply install the turret on a hull during assembly. Then they just had to seal off the back opening (radios), and paint the tank.
gary




The Firefly Turrets were converted in the UK and not manufactured in the US so this is more than likely a HB turret with a Loaders hatch, does your photo have a cutout in the bustle and a Radio box installed? Can you indicate the name of the book please.


As to the original I thought that this had been laid to bed many years ago and the whole vehicle was resprayed. I am pretty sure that Shane Lovell unearthed the Instructions covering this one and posted it on ML many years ago.

Al



need to slightly correct myself as it was the turret mounted on the backside of the fixture. Looking at the photo again, I see at least three turrets in the process of being machined, but it appears that there is only one with the cutout for the radio box on the back. Now the book says that Fisher Grand Blanc never did the M4a4, but did the M4a2,M4a3,M4a3e2. Casting number on the facing turret is D50878 with the last number or letter being a circle with what looks like an M in it.

I know of no M4 turret with the backside cut out like that. The book is titled "The M4 Sherman Tank, Owners Workshop Manual" by Haynes.

Looking thru the book, I see no other Sherman with the backside of the turret cut out like that, except for Fireflys (Mayflys) and maybe some Canadian tanks. So I don't know for sure, as the book also says the Brits did the conversion. Is it possible that the U.S. simply sent over semi assembled Sherman Tanks? This in my eyes would make a lot of sense, and also be a work aid for the Brits. If that be the case, I'd almost have to think U.S. O.D. green was on them prior to being shipped. Did the Brits repaint them? I have no idea. All photos I have are rather grainy black & whites.

gary
gastec
Visit this Community
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Posted: Sunday, July 03, 2016 - 09:30 AM UTC
Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2016 - 01:31 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary



look on page 50, and then look directly under the word "Ingersol" on the machine column. It's with the turret mounted on the backside of the fixture.

Never felt I was ever anykind of a Sherman expert, or anything like that. Just always trying to learn. This is a real shame as about ten years ago I had access to TACOM's fish tape, and believe me the data was in there.

So to answer the issue with a simple question. "Why did they machine a large rectangle opening in the back of a turret?"
gary

trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2016 - 01:48 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

This tells me that they wouldn't ship a primer painted turret to England for assembly as it would likely be a ball of rust.



The purpose of primer is to PREVENT rust so that your "ball of rust" would not happen. I suspect that you might be wrong about either the location of the photo of the Firefly turret, or in the identification of it, as conversion work was done at Vickers (according to some sources).



primer paint as a rule is very porous, and with it rust is a problem. In that era they might have used red lead paint, as it goes on heavy and compared to other primers is fairly solid. Of course they could have simply primed the surfaces, and the gave it a heavy coat of Cosmolene for shipping. Otherwise the salt air would have reeked havoc. Plus putting a final coat of paint on the surface would have not been fun at all.
gary
m4sherman
Visit this Community
Arizona, United States
Joined: January 18, 2006
KitMaker: 1,866 posts
Armorama: 1,808 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2016 - 03:01 AM UTC
Everything I have for reference says that all Firefly conversions were done from completed tanks available in the UK. The US did not assist, and when the US Army in the ETO wanted a few Firefly's had to provide the British with the tanks needed for the conversion.

The lead based red oxide used in WWII was durable. I found it easier to remove rust with my home sand blaster. OD came off a lot easier.
gastec
Visit this Community
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2016 - 11:29 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary



look on page 50, and then look directly under the word "Ingersol" on the machine column. It's with the turret mounted on the backside of the fixture.

Never felt I was ever anykind of a Sherman expert, or anything like that. Just always trying to learn. This is a real shame as about ten years ago I had access to TACOM's fish tape, and believe me the data was in there.

So to answer the issue with a simple question. "Why did they machine a large rectangle opening in the back of a turret?"
gary




Gary

That is actually the front of a turret and the opening for the main gun that you can see.
If you look at the turret in the middle of the photo, you will notice a small notch machined out by the casting number (between the machinist's hands). You can see the same notch on the turret you are referring to.
You've simply misenterpreted the photo I'm afraid. Sorry.

Gary
Removed by original poster on 07/05/16 - 10:22:40 (GMT).
tanknick22
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: February 19, 2009
KitMaker: 1,139 posts
Armorama: 1,100 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2016 - 03:24 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Wasn't all the conversion work done in England?



Yes all Firefly conversions were done in the UK
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Monday, July 04, 2016 - 09:45 PM UTC

Quoted Text

M4's were all factory painted US OD. So when they were converted to Firefly's, the British work would have been painted/re-painted with the British version OD. I can't really see them as re-painting the entire vehicle as that would be a waste of resources.



This is a supposition on your part, unsupported by documentation and the realities of the conversion process, and contradicted by existing photographs. (Vehicles from the US were covered with shipping markings, preservation warnings, sealing compounds, and in the case of remanufactured vehicles, vice factory new, US stars and registration numbers. Fireflies do not have these present.) Thus, to ask


Quoted Text

Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)?



is ridiculous as there is no fact to confirm as correct. (You know, "verify".)

Why not phrase it correctly from the start:


Quoted Text

Idea for Firefly Model

Hey guys, I think it would be really cool looking to model a Firefly with different color on the unmodified, US parts. It's good enough of a premise for a "what if" model so even if it isn't realistic I'm going to do it anyway 'cause the color contrast will be neat.

What do you guys think?



I don't follow the guys who come up with some idea for a cool subject then troll about for justification. Pick a lane people. Either make an accurate model based on a photo you found first, or make the model you see in your head and stop worrying about accuracy.

KL
ericadeane
Visit this Community
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 01:00 AM UTC
Gary Totty: Like Gary Boxall said, you've misinterpreted the photo. That's picture shows the front of the turret and the hole is for the mantlet/gun assembly
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 04:16 AM UTC

Quoted Text


This is a supposition on your part, unsupported by documentation and the realities of the conversion process, and contradicted by existing photographs. (Vehicles from the US were covered with shipping markings, preservation warnings, sealing compounds, and in the case of remanufactured vehicles, vice factory new, US stars and registration numbers. Fireflies do not have these present.) Thus, to ask


Quoted Text

Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)?



is ridiculous as there is no fact to confirm as correct. (You know, "verify".)

Why not phrase it correctly from the start:


What exactly is your point on this? That M4's arriving in England (for Firefly conversion) arrived unpainted? Or are you just bashing me because you think you speak better English than I?
trickymissfit
Joined: October 03, 2007
KitMaker: 1,388 posts
Armorama: 1,357 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 10:09 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Quoted Text


Quoted Text

Gary

I assume that you are referring to the photo spraed across Pages 50 & 51 of the turrets being machined at the Fisher facility?
If yes, I cannot, for the life of me, see a turret with a cut out in the bustle for a Firefly radio? Yes, there are 3 turrets on their side but no view is included of the rear of the turrets so any cut out (even if it existed) cannot be seen.

Chrylser exclusively built the M4A4.

Gary



look on page 50, and then look directly under the word "Ingersol" on the machine column. It's with the turret mounted on the backside of the fixture.

Never felt I was ever anykind of a Sherman expert, or anything like that. Just always trying to learn. This is a real shame as about ten years ago I had access to TACOM's fish tape, and believe me the data was in there.

So to answer the issue with a simple question. "Why did they machine a large rectangle opening in the back of a turret?"
gary




Gary

That is actually the front of a turret and the opening for the main gun that you can see.
If you look at the turret in the middle of the photo, you will notice a small notch machined out by the casting number (between the machinist's hands). You can see the same notch on the turret you are referring to.
You've simply misenterpreted the photo I'm afraid. Sorry.

Gary



I see where I screwed up, so accept my apologies. What convinced me was looking at the front turret and seeing the antenna pot (located at the rear of course). I combined the two in my mind. Could go deeper, but will leave it alone.
gary
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 06:09 PM UTC

Quoted Text

What exactly is your point on this? That M4's arriving in England (for Firefly conversion) arrived unpainted? Or are you just bashing me because you think you speak better English than I?



Neither. It is to point out that you haven't started with a fact or even an observed condition but with some self-generated idea, and you are asking others to confirm it for you. It seems you fancy making a Firefly with differing colors (which is fine), but rather than just doing it for its own sake you want to backfill (or more correctly, want others to backfill for you) some historical justification.

Look in Hayward's Firefly book at the photos of the first (prototype) VC tank. The hull sides have a number of markings typical of tanks upon arrival overseas. Clearly the hull has not been repainted. (Nor modified at all: the bow MG fittings are unaltered.) Do you see these markings on the photos of Fireflies in service? Geez, where did they go? How could they just disappear like that?

But wait a minute . . . There are number of photographs of standard Shermans in service with shipping markings present.

Hmmm . . . Modified tanks have no markings but unmodified tanks do . . . What could that mean? If only there was some conclusion we could draw from those observations!


KL
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 07:27 PM UTC
If you read to the bottom of my OP, I said "If so", and "can anyone verify". Both questions to my preceding statements. Please leave any grammatical faux pas to the proper authorities! And I do not understand why you are going on about specific markings - stars, registrations nos., shipping labels, etc., as I was inquiring about COLOR. A simple, "No, I'm sure they were all completely repainted after conversion", would have sufficed.
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 08:37 PM UTC

Quoted Text

If you read to the bottom of my OP, I said "If so", and "can anyone verify". Both questions to my preceding statements. Please leave any grammatical faux pas to the proper authorities! And I do not understand why you are going on about specific markings - stars, registrations nos., shipping labels, etc., as I was inquiring about COLOR. A simple, "No, I'm sure they were all completely repainted after conversion", would have sufficed.



From the original post:

"Can anyone verify that Firefly's appeared in two shades of OD (both British and US)?"

The answer is no, and the explanation and proof of that explanation (the going on about marking that so puzzles you) was given.

Your choice of "verify" has nothing to do with grammar. I'm sure verify, or confirm, or validate, or prove, or something similar is exactly what you meant as your first statement was written as a fact or nearly so.

It's easy on the internet to attempt to deflect criticism of god-awful attempts at communication as an attack by the "Grammar Nazis", but that doesn't make it so.

KL

Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 09:08 PM UTC

Quoted Text



Your choice of "verify" has nothing to do with grammar. I'm sure verify, or confirm, or validate, or prove, or something similar is exactly what you meant as your first statement was written as a fact or nearly so.
KL



Well, you must indeed be a very extraordinary, or very pretentious, person, if you claim to be able to read my mind. My OP meant IF/WERE Fireflies were completely repainted, or partially repainted following conversion, but it seems you know better. You also seem to be the only person who found fault with, or willfully misinterpreted, my question, just to go on a rant and belittle me.
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 - 09:19 PM UTC

Quoted Text



I don't follow the guys who come up with some idea for a cool subject then troll about for justification.

KL


Maybe you should re-think your use or concept of the word "troll"? Unwarrented use is very troll-like! Or could you mean "trawling"?
KurtLaughlin
Visit this Community
Pennsylvania, United States
Joined: January 18, 2003
KitMaker: 2,402 posts
Armorama: 2,377 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 - 12:35 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Maybe you should re-think your use or concept of the word "troll"? Unwarrented use is very troll-like! Or could you mean "trawling"?



Heh-heh, I probably did mean that, but troll seems equally appropos as I was referring to the leeches who can't be bothered to buy books or do research on their own but expect others to come up with the justification for their pipe dreams so they don't have to be entered in the sci-fi categories.

And it's unwarranted, two As, one E.

KL
Biggles2
Visit this Community
Quebec, Canada
Joined: January 01, 2004
KitMaker: 7,600 posts
Armorama: 6,110 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 - 03:49 AM UTC
Gee, I thought this forum was all about asking advice and feedback on concepts and projects, among other things - but I guess you'd like to change all that to suit your own little find-things-out-for-yourself attitude. Why don't you start your very own little forum somewhere far, far away, where you can rant, belittle, and play spelling and grammar Nazi all by yourself. Anyway, enough! I've already wasted enough time that could have been better spent model building. Have a good life.
gastec
Visit this Community
Auckland, New Zealand
Joined: February 03, 2014
KitMaker: 1,042 posts
Armorama: 871 posts
Posted: Wednesday, July 06, 2016 - 04:46 AM UTC

Quoted Text


I see where I screwed up, so accept my apologies. What convinced me was looking at the front turret and seeing the antenna pot (located at the rear of course). I combined the two in my mind. Could go deeper, but will leave it alone.
gary



It's not about screwing up. Who hasn't looked at a photo and not missed what is really there? I know I have

Gary
 _GOTOTOP