Straight Outta Supertest: Stuart I, Sherman III, Firefly


Thanks go to the_komp for this batch of leaks :) Unfortunately, we still only have models and armor, no characteristics.







52 thoughts on “Straight Outta Supertest: Stuart I, Sherman III, Firefly

    • Same with firefly, why a Sherman I Hybrid hull? which was the least common version of the Firefly. Most Fireflys were converted from the M4A4 (VC) which was also the main Lend-Lease version of the Sherman.

    • These are stock setups, the gun on the Firefly is probably a 75mm M1A1 not the QF 17 pdr.
      Also the reason for cast hull I think is that this will be the stock hull and the M4A4 hull is the upgraded when the researchable hull feature comes later.

      • Then they should have given it the M4A4 hull _now_ and the more obscure one later when the modular hulls come.

        M4A4 is the “iconic” look for the Firefly. There’s no excuse to not do it. Absolutely none. Imagine if they had the Pz4 only have the Ausf. A hull even on the tier 5 one, or if the T-34 only had its prototype hull.

        This is on that kind of tier of messing up.

    • Agreed. I really hope that’s the stock gun. Even someone who isn’t generally familiar with historical tanks like me can see the difference between this and the 17lber.

  1. What the abject hell, the most common and important British Shermans were M4A4s, not these things.

    Typical. They no doubt want British tanks to look stupid and imply they only ever had weaker variants. Hopefully this will get changed entirely before release to the M4A4, but I highly doubt it at this stage…

    Christ, the Firefly is _ICONIC_ with the M4A4 shape. This makes no goddamned sense at all. It’s like only giving the Tiger II its original turret and not the second one.

    Just google “Sherman Firefly” and you can see the ENORMOUS difference.

        • Only its true. WG will move heaven and earth to adjust a Russian vehicle by millimetres days after its release if the RU forums complain.

          Yet there are monumentally huge errors that British line players in the EU have been calling out again and again for over two years now that have yet to be fixed.

          Watch this turn into another one.

        • Its true. As long as there 90% Rus playerbase dont care [and most dont since they hate NAto anyways and wish they could take sole credit for the victory] WG could give a shit.

          Also, watch WG brag about them making this ultra “Rare” hull type.

    • “It’s like only giving the Tiger II its original turret and not the second one.”

      Not really, just check the data and you would know Hybrid hull is a later design, plus you can see many of them on google.

      • I’m willing to learn. Do you have any reading material online you can link to regarding the differences and production?

        You say above it’s 64mm, but the image of the tank armourzones has a 50mm area on the front instead. WG mistake?

  2. There’s no firefly there. The firefly 17pdr had a mussel breaker. As well as a bit at the back to hold extra shells. It looks more like a half hearted conversion.

  3. Firefly model shown here is with the stock turret for some reason. Top turret is the proper one I think

    • Unfortunately the hull isn’t right either way…

      They only had what, 3-4 years to get one of the wars most important tanks right? Clearly not long enough.

    • Because they’ve got one of the most iconic and important tanks in WW2 wrong in ways that even an amateur would laugh at. That’s why.

      Can you imagine the rage if the T-34, Tiger, PzIV etc weren’t done right, had the wrong hull entirely etc? This is on that same tier of problem.

      • There is nothing wrong with the Sherman III or the Firefly IC. These are the stock configurations, Wargamming knows how to put long barrels on tanks, the upgraded version will be with the right turret and 17 pounder.
        Sherman I, IC,II,III,V, and VC all fought at Normandy, Wargamming did not make a Mistake here.
        Just relax.

  4. Wait … the bigger part of the frontal hull for the FIREFLY is only 25,4 armor?

    Given they will reduce the mobility of the tank and the hull down capabilities by nerving the gun depression, it means this tank is going to face shit straight on and will suffer hard….

    What the hell was I waiting for?

  5. Pingback: Info ze supertestu: Sherman Firefly

  6. I really had hoped for the Stuart V, the Stuart I is so much like the M2A4 and M3 Stuarts in the game.
    The M3A3 Stuart V is very different, in looks and even has sloped armor.
    Maybe when Alt Hulls comes…

  7. The gun shown on the Sherman Ic is a US 76mm, guessing L/52 or L/55 maybe.
    The gun shown on the Sherman III looks to be a US M3 75mm L/40

    Im looking forward to racing across desert sands in the M3 “Honey” with the Brits 3 tone deser skin. Too bad we dont get a pennant and the 7th armored Jeroba emblem for front fender.

  8. Given WG’s inability to deliver HD models in a timely manner for the current in game vehicles, we may see Hell freeze over before any alternate hulls show up. WG may decide to abandon alternate hulls all together with their usual, “It would confuse the players.”