Author Topic: firefly (Read 2206 times)

WMDnow · « **Reply #15 on:** April 12, 2007, 03:45:11 PM »

Is it possible the shells got RIGHT through the shermans?

Krusty · « **Reply #16 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:02:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by nickf620
i thought the avg came up with that

AVG saw pictures of Bf110Cs from Haifisch sporting them, and went from there.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #17 on:** April 12, 2007, 07:59:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 715
OK. I am WAY confused. All that I have read about the Sherman was that it had terrible armor. Their loss rate was 560%... ie each was destroyed and rebuilt over 5 times. It was called the "Ronson lighter" because it "Lite the First Time Every Time". But the Sherman we now have is only slightly less tough than the Tiger. I have hit them point blank multiple times with my T-34 and they don't die. Was the Firefly some major uparmored version???

A guy last night was able to take out my Firefly with one shot in a T-34. It took him 8 T-34s before he was able to sneak the 9th T-34 past me and hit my engine area while I was fighting a couple of Tigers. I do have to admit that being able to kill T-34s, Panzers and Tigers in one shot from 1000+ yards is pretty damn cool. First time I got to see the turret blowing off the tank animation.

ack-ack

Serenity · « **Reply #18 on:** April 12, 2007, 08:05:53 PM »

Wasnt the Sherman faster than the Panzer? Right now they have the same top speed. I know the bigger gun must have added weight, but did it add THAT much?

Saxman · « **Reply #19 on:** April 12, 2007, 08:11:52 PM »

What armor? Every time I've upped a Sherman since the patch I've been popped in one shot.

E25280 · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:56:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Serenity
Wasnt the Sherman faster than the Panzer?

No. Virtually identical top speed.

humble · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2007, 10:16:04 PM »

The "ronson" nickname came from the battle at Kasserine. Later models had different ammo handling as mentioned. The real weakness in the sherman was its inferior low velocity gun. This required that the M4 closed to almost suicidal ranges with tigers and panthers. The other weakness was the high profile. The Sherman however had good slope to its frontal armor and a thick rounded gun mantle. The Firefly was very dangerous and took a hvy toll on the germans. Normally it was deployed 1 per platoon and used in the overwatch roll (it sniped while the rest of the platoon attacked).

I did however bounce a shell from a firefly off a firefly at ~600 or so. To me this is similiar to the randomness of the damage modeling overall not the sherman per se.... I did hit a firefly in the back from 1200 or so 3 times with a T-34 with the HVAP and didnt kill it...

Viking · « **Reply #22 on:** April 13, 2007, 12:00:08 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by E25280
They faced mostly Tigers, Panthers, and fully upgraded/upgunned PzkwIVs. Note that the first two are heavy tanks, yet since the Sherman medium tank couldn't go toe-to-toe with them, the Sherman gets branded as "inadequate."

The Panther was a medium tank.

The M4A4 Sherman only had 51 mm frontal hull armor, and 76 mm frontal turret armor. The gun mantlet was also only 76 mm thick. This is more than the 1940-43 T-34-76, but less than the 1944 T-34-85.

In comparison the Tiger I had 100 mm frontal hull and turret armor, 80 mm side hull and turret armor and 110 mm gun mantlet. The Tiger’s armor was also of superior quality to all other tanks of the war. The KwK 36 L/56 gun should penetrate the Sherman’s best armor at well beyond 2000 yards.

The Panzer IV Ausf. H had 80 mm frontal hull armor and 50 mm frontal turret and gun mantlet armor. The 7.5 cm KwK 40 gun should penetrate the Sherman’s best armor at well beyond 1000 yards.

The T-34’s 76.2 mm F-34 gun using AP ammo should not penetrate the Sherman’s best armor except maybe at less than 100 yards. It should however penetrate the frontal hull armor at 500 yards. Using APCR ammo it should also penetrate the Turret at 500 yards and hull at 1000 yards.

The Sherman Firefly did not have upgraded armor, but did have a different gun mantlet which thickness varied between 38 mm and 89 mm.

Viking · « **Reply #23 on:** April 13, 2007, 12:18:02 AM »

Btw. the 76.2 mm 17-pounder used on the Sherman VC Firefly should blow a hole in everything at 1000 yards, and using APDS ammo it could even blow a hole in a Tiger at 2000 yards. The APDS ammo was not very accurate however.

Serenity · « **Reply #24 on:** April 13, 2007, 01:11:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
Btw. the 76.2 mm 17-pounder used on the Sherman VC Firefly should blow a hole in everything at 1000 yards, and using APDS ammo it could even blow a hole in a Tiger at 2000 yards. The APDS ammo was not very accurate however.

Care to explain why I hit another Sherman in the turret at point blank and it only disabled his turret? Im not sure whether I started recording in time to catch that particular incident, so Im not sure I have any proof. Just a comment.

Geary420 · « **Reply #25 on:** April 13, 2007, 01:33:19 AM »

Notice he said "Should" doesn't mean its always gonna work out that way. Plus with the way the damage model is in the game you can shoot a tank in the turret over and over and your not gonna kill it just smoke the turret. Gotta put one through the hull so you get a nice secondary.

715 · « **Reply #26 on:** April 13, 2007, 02:00:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by humble
TI did however bounce a shell from a firefly off a firefly at ~600 or so. To me this is similiar to the randomness of the damage modeling overall not the sherman per se.... I did hit a firefly in the back from 1200 or so 3 times with a T-34 with the HVAP and didnt kill it...

Be sure to read the readme.txt for this version. It explains the modeling of the HVAP in the T34. It is superior to the normal AP at short range only. At greater than 1000 it is only slighty better. At greater than 1500 its actually worse. So at medium to long range it is pointless to use the AH T34 HVAP.

I have hit Fireflys at point blank range (were talking measured in feet) on multiple cases with HVAP and done no damage. This into turret and track. I have given up trying to kill Fireflys with my T34; I can kill Tigers easier (which the new HVAP makes actually possible, at short range anyway).

E25280 · « **Reply #27 on:** April 13, 2007, 08:13:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Viking
The Panther was a medium tank.

IIRC Panther was 45 tons vs. the Sherman's roughly 30 tons. If you want to classify that as a "medium" tank (different definitions depending on where you look), that's fine, but it was definitely a "heavy" compared to the Sherman / PzkwIV / T-34/76.

humble · « **Reply #28 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:27:07 AM »

The Panther had exceptional slope to its armor as well as a very high velocity gun (similiar to the firefly). It was considered by many as not only the best tank design of WW2 but the best until well into the 1960's. Correct armor sloping proved to be very important. The "boxlike" structure of the PzIV (and Tiger to a degree) degraded armor protection. The soviets had the best sloping by far. The Sherman is a "tweener" with excellent frontal sloping and a curved gun mantlet. It's overall armor was equal or superior to the PZIV....

Viking · « **Reply #29 on:** April 13, 2007, 09:31:12 AM »

It was a bit on the heavy side of the spectrum, but it is universally recognized as a medium tank, and the best medium tank of the war (from a performance point of view).