Question in relation to British Sherman 'Firefly' development please

[Pioneer]

Just finished watching the very interesting episode of Armoured Archives titled Sherman Firefly - Design and Development - Lost Aussie Connection

View: https://youtu.be/mmgLNV5x1bc


Interestingly, they state in the episode:
'Mount a 17-pdr gun to A30 Challanger MK1, which was ready by September 1942, but due to uncertainty from the War Office, on which guns to use on tanks and some interference from the U.S....'

Can I ask if anyone knows what this 'interferance by the U.S. was? And probably more importantly, why would the U.S. in the British developing an efficient and effective tank??

Regards
Pioneer

 

[CJGibson]

I had a look at David Fletcher's Osprey book on the Firefly.

Could be because the US Army viewed tanks as infantry support vehicles rather than for killing other tanks (for which they had tank destroyers, such as the M10). The US Army also took the view (pre-Overlord) that the British (i.e. Percy Hobart) were wasting time and resources fiddling with tanks to produce specialist vehicles that could be better expended on just tanks. Then had the audacity to ask for more tanks!

Chris

 

[Pioneer]

I had a look at David Fletcher's Osprey book on the Firefly.

Could be because the US Army viewed tanks as infantry support vehicles rather than for killing other tanks (for which they had tank destroyers, such as the M10). The US Army also took the view (pre-Overlord) that the British (i.e. Percy Hobart) were wasting time and resources fiddling with tanks to produce specialist vehicles that could be better expended on just tanks. Then had the audacity to ask for more tanks!

Chris

Thank you for your time and effort Chris.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[EwenS]

Having just read “A30 Challenger Tank A Technical History” the only US involvement I can find dates back to the very earliest days of the project.

The Aug 1941 Minutes of the Second Meeting of the Tank Board have this to say about one of its first tasks to get a vehicle to mount the 17pdr:-

“It was agreed that the most suitable approach would probably be the Heavy American Tank, but that Mr Lucas should investigate the possibility of mounting a 17pdr Gun with limited traverse on a Tank of existing design, in addition to the project for a Tank of British Design with revolving turret.”

The US Tank in question was the T1/M6.

By the seventh meeting in Dec 1941 the Minutes said

“It was agreed that it was desirable to develop a Tank to carry a 17 Pdr gun in this country in addition to the American T1.”

The prototype T1 was only ready in Dec 1941 and limited production didn’t start until Dec 1942 by which time the US Army had lost interest in it. The planned production for Britain never materialised. So that may be the source of the “interference” I.e. the failure of the US to develop the M6.

Incidentally the book also explained the height of the Challenger turret. The requirement for the Challenger specified that the gun had to have 10 degrees depression throughout a 360 degree arc, necessitating a high trunnion in the turret. The depression on the Firefly was limited to only 5 degrees. Both had 20 degree elevation.

 

[Pioneer]

Thank you EwenS, very interesting! The question of the T1/M6 not being built and fielded is an interesting question of contention itself.
From what I've read, the American's were in favour of themselves being the principle builder and supplier of tanks - this included to Australia, in place of their Sentinel cruiser tank design and efforts.

Regards
Pioneer