Author Topic: Britians answer to the 17 pounder  (Read 1149 times)

Offline Napoleon II

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 55
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2008, 08:17:35 AM »
Thought this was going to be a thread about hamburgers!

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2008, 08:27:19 AM »
The Sherman WITHOUT the 17 pounder has no chance against a Tiger... except by gang-ramming perhaps?
Anyway, the Comet is much better. It's faster, thicker, lower, wider and slightly heavier than...the Firefly :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2008, 09:06:57 AM »
Quote
It also used a armor piercing high velocity depleted Sabo round which we would be the equivelant of our modern day uranium depleted rounds.

Quote
A depleted what round?

I'd like to know what AApache was talking about also. The only *depleted* rounds I've ever heard of are depleted uranium rounds. I saw a show where a Comet was being restored and it was mentioned that it fired a Sabot round but didn't say it was *depleted*. /shrug

Quote
His post does not say they used them, he compared the two,

Since the depleted aspect of his statement is in question, I'm not sure what he was doing. :)
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #18 on: April 11, 2008, 07:44:11 PM »
BTW Comets were used into the early 80's AFAIK....
Not sure what the rounds were at the time....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline texasmom

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6078
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #19 on: April 11, 2008, 10:04:51 PM »
I think that AApache may have only meant that the Sabot rounds used were the "top of the line" for that time period; in the same fashion that depleted uranium later became "top of the line."  I don't see any comparison between the two in his post other than that, though.
<S> Easy8
<S> Mac

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #20 on: April 12, 2008, 01:13:46 AM »
At least the same- The firefly IS still a sherman. The 17-pounder isn't some magical wand that deflects' 88mm shells. The Firefly's survival depends' upon getting a first shot, at about 500 yrds. to be sure of a first-round kill. Otherwise, the Tiger's first shot in the engagement will be the last.

The Comet's armor might let it survive at a closer range to a Tiger than the Firefly could.

BTW, Why is this in the O'club, and not Planes' and Vehicles?

The Tiger has surplus killing power against either, Choose speed or killing power, in history killing power trumps speed.
Neither tank has the ability to go one on one with  Tiger with confidence. Both can easily be defeated by the tiger but cannot be sure of returning the favour at longer ranges.
The Sherman has a better chance of killing the Tiger at a range that it might resist the 88mm hit. The Comet might be missed by the tiger because of its speed, but would have to count on a few of those to threaten the tiger.
Given the choice, I would take the higher chance of killing the tiger with my first shot.
Against a panther it gets worse for the comet.
So I will take the firefly, I suspect most would if the comet was introduced.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #21 on: April 12, 2008, 03:53:26 AM »
Tiger has one drawback....slow turret traverse.
AFAIK 1 minute. Will have to look up on this though, but the allied tackle on Tigers was basically baiting them as somebody else nailed them from another direction.
Gangbanging, just like AH pony tactics :D
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #22 on: April 12, 2008, 12:06:35 PM »
Tiger has one drawback....slow turret traverse.

and they break down allot. and they are hard to fix in the field. and they took too long to build. and they weighed too much.

Offline Brownshirt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2008, 12:27:17 PM »
I'd like to know what AApache was talking about also. The only *depleted* rounds I've ever heard of are depleted uranium rounds. I saw a show where a Comet was being restored and it was mentioned that it fired a Sabot round but didn't say it was *depleted*. /shrug

Since the depleted aspect of his statement is in question, I'm not sure what he was doing. :)


Rounds used were APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) type with Tungsten (Wolfram) penetrator.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2008, 12:32:30 PM »
So, in short, the best penetrating rounds available....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline GtoRA2

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8339
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2008, 11:18:37 PM »
So, in short, the best penetrating rounds available....

The same round type in a 17 pounder would be a better gun.


Offline Brownshirt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2008, 11:55:49 PM »
So, in short, the best penetrating rounds available....

but very inaccurate at first. To penetrate any armor you have to hit it first.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #27 on: April 14, 2008, 05:16:29 PM »
To penetrate a Tiger, you have to be close anyway?
And to get a good bead, a stable (wide) tank?
And to get a first bead, speed and traverse?
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)

Offline Brownshirt

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 81
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2008, 07:18:08 AM »
17pdr had 15-20% better penetration at any range compared to Comet's 77mm when using same ammo.

17pdr's APDS could penetrate Tiger 1's armor from about any range, from 3000m it penetrated +150mm @ straight hit.

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: Britians answer to the 17 pounder
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2008, 07:24:51 AM »
Holy cow! I knew it penetrated well, but that well, holy moly!
AFAIK the Comet had to lower this due to a different turret anyway, but obviously still packed some power as well as being faster, stabler and more heavily armed than the Firefly.
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)