Slitherine

I can place Brit Fireflies in my editor-created scenarios, but if I want to buy more during play they don't show up on the purchase screen. The Churchill and a few other tanks are there, but why not the Firefly?
At first I thought I need to change the scenario date, but no matter what date I tried from Sept 1944 to the end of the war the Fireflies were never available for purchase. (sniffle)

Spike, sometimes tears are called for when dealing with this game. I myself have dampened many a crying towel over OOB. It's not a matter of manliness so if you feel the need, just let it go, man. Just let it go.

But in this case, you may dry your tears. You can always place any unit on the map using the scenario editor but the game will not let you purchase more of a unit if the date and nationality are not right for it or the unit requires a specialisation that is not in place yet. That is the situation with this unit; it requires the Lend Lease Act specialisation (click images for full view):
So if you give Great Britain the Lend Lease Act specialisation in the editor to begin with (and the date is on or after 27/12/1943), the Sherman Firefly will be available for purchase in your scenario:

Thanks mate that works, Wittman tried to mess with a Firefly, bad call..

Interesting tidbit. Thanks for that.

Below is a picture of the wreck of the Wittmann's tank.
I do not believe that Firefly could do it. A Thunderbolt's or Typhoon's missile attack is the only explanation for such damage - a turret of a tank detached and thrown away for several meters.
Unfortunately, there is no irrefutable evidence because no one (USAAF or RAF) reported the destroyed tank in the vicinity.
The version about destruction due to artillery indirect fire appears to be probable, too.

kondi754 wrote:..I do not believe that Firefly could do it..

You'd better argue it out with Firefly gunner Joe Ekins, pick him up at 29:44 in this video telling in his own words how he trashed 3 out of a group of 4 Tigers at around 800 yards. There were plenty of eyewitness, namely a big chunk of the Brit and Canadian Armies..
https://youtu.be/mCNz7OC8YIs

Canadian Sherman 75mm's almost certainly got the 4th Tiger with shots into its side, pick up the Canadian General describing the action at 34:05 in the vid.
The only uncertainty is which of the 4 Tigers was Wittman's.
Here's an overview map of the action, the yellow line is the front line.
1- The 4 Tigers (red circles) advancing down the blue arrow.
2- Ekins Firefly was positioned here, he knocks out 3.
3- The Canadian Shermans firing into the Tigers flanks.

A guy with such formidable eyebrows would never make up stories like that! Above recount has to be true.

I'm not saying that he is lying, but man sees surprising things in the heat of battle.
This reminds me of the situation with the number of victories declared by fighter pilots during the II world war, where, after all, there were also "eyewitness" witnesses.
It turned out that the real victories was 30-50% of victories declared (and officially confirmed during the war), it was a result of thorough research carried out after the war, mainly in the archives of the opposing side and comparative studies.

Specialists have serious doubts about the statements of Ekins. It would have to be an unbelievable shot to tear away the tiger's turret from such a distance.
If the projectile pierced the armor and massacred the crew inside everything would be ok for me, but this turret is a good dozen meters away from the chassis.

800 yards = 730 meters?
If Ekins would shoot at 50-100 meters (so it was at Kursk and there actually were "flying" turrets ), maybe I would believe it but in this situation, there is NO WAY

It's more likely that the Canadians (from the other side of the road) did it. There were 2 Canadians Firefly, so there was a chance for it.
But most likely it's the fire of British heavy artillery, if the RAF refuses to admit it ...

Actually, I agree with you that he probably didn't take out 3 tigers especially given he was quite green.

However, an (un)lucky shot from the Firefly that hits the HE shells of the tiger is actually a very likely reason that caused an internal explosion with enough pressure for the cupola to blow up and fly away. A shot from outside that didn't cause an internal explosion must've been indeed quite powerful and definitely not possible to be done by another tank.

13obo wrote:..he probably didn't take out 3 tigers especially given he was quite green..

Piece o' cake..
For example when multiplayer Armed Assault players join my 'Iron Men' squad they sometimes say to me "Apologies if I mess up, but I'm a bit inexperienced", I reply- "Mate, when you lay your tank gun crosshairs on the enemy and pull that trigger, the shell won't know you're inexperienced and it'll still fly at a zillion feet per second, so that makes you just as dangerous as anybody else, and don't ever forget it".
With their morale now skyhigh, I sit back and watch them go on killing sprees and I think "That's my boy, you're a soldier now"..

13obo wrote:Actually, I agree with you that he probably didn't take out 3 tigers especially given he was quite green.

However, an (un)lucky shot from the Firefly that hits the HE shells of the tiger is actually a very likely reason that caused an internal explosion with enough pressure for the cupola to blow up and fly away. A shot from outside that didn't cause an internal explosion must've been indeed quite powerful and definitely not possible to be done by another tank.

I agree that the reason for throwing away the turret was an internal explosion of ammunition, but not as a result of tank fire.
Did you know there were no signs of armor breach by Allied tank missiles in the back and sides of the Wittmann vehicle?
Do you know that the soldiers of the Polish and Canadian armored divisions fighting in this area firmly claiming that there was no English tank on the battlefield?
On the other hand, there was a terrible heat of that day, in the Polish armored division there were several cases of tank fires caused by self-ignition of poorly repaired fuel systems. Wittmann's tank had repaired fuel system before the battle...
The heat stroke caused by the near explosion of the artillery shell caused the fuel in the Wittman tank to ignite, then it caught fire and exploded the tank engine causing an explosion of ammunition, which before the battle the tank had an extremely large amount.
I read about such a reason of Wittman's death...

Sounds plausible too!

Earlier in Normandy, Wittman had run riot in Villers-Bocage, knocking out Cromwells left right and centre because their 75mm guns couldn't scratch his Tiger. No doubt he later thought he could do a repeat performance, but he reckoned without Firefly gunner Joe Ekins who had him for breakfast..
PS- Speaking of Cromwells, regrettably there are none in OOB and hopefully the devs will produce one so we can include them in our West Front 44/45 scenarios, and while they're at it perhaps they could also create a Brit Archer tank destroyer, it packed the same 17-pounder as the Firefly.

Some witnesses from Canadian and Polish units claim that in this area there was no clash of German and Allied tanks at that time, because it was planned to start a carpet bombardment around the road where Wittmann and his tanks were following.
No armored patrols are sent in the foreground before the onset of the bombing expedition, because it would be a certain death for them.