« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 [15] 16   Go Down

Author Topic: How about a Sherman Tank?  (Read 4728 times)

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #210 on: July 16, 2006, 04:12:03 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
Then you shouldn't put down what you know nothing about.

King Tiger had max armor of 180mm or so in the front.  Sides were about 80mm, which is no more than the Tiger I.

17 Pounder firing an APDS round (granddaddy to modern-day Sabot rounds) could penetrate 213mm armor at a range of 1000 meters.

Because of the slope of the armor in the front of the King Tiger, I don't know if the round would ricochet rather than penetrate, but a side or rear shot would destroy the TigerII easily at range.

Firefly would have to be perked, but I would love to see it.  I would love even more to see as many variants of the Sherman as we have 109s or Spits, just to make it interesting.  Personal favorite is the 105mm assault version for base blasting, with HEAT rounds for the pesky vehicles it would run into.


I dont know the Firefly, but i KNOW my kitty-cat. The King Tiger has sloped armor which makes a front shot and side shots from certain agles ricochets, as well as certian side shots to the turret ricochets as well. Though a shot to the rear is a GARUNTEED hit, as well as anything from above. So, thought the gun on the firefly is powerful, the armor's... facets? on the King Tiger make landing the shots hard. Also, im not sure about this, but i beleive the King Tiger had either ridges or reactive armor. I beleive it had one, but i cannot remember which. Either way, its hard to kill.
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #211 on: July 16, 2006, 04:43:46 AM »
There was but a handful of King Tigers, thousands of Shermies.
While the Shermie was not as heavily armed as many German tanks, once it had the 17 pdr, it is one of the best Gunned tanks of WW2. It is also faster and more maneuverable than the King tiger, as well as endurance is a lot more.
The King Tiger had some problems. Such as being underpowered, Too heavy, Steering control problems, short legged etc.
(all factors that wouldn't do too much in AH, but we aint getting no King Tiger anyway ;))
Logged
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 Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #212 on: July 16, 2006, 04:45:00 AM »
Oh, and BTW, not all King Tigers had the same turret. Only 50 sloped turrets I'm afraid.
Logged
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 Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #213 on: July 16, 2006, 04:52:00 AM »
Yeah, my kitty had her problems, but with the sloped turret, enough gas to go somewhere, she PPPPUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRREEE EEEEDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!!! :D:aok:D
Logged

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #214 on: July 16, 2006, 05:43:39 AM »
Purr on this one ;)


A good match for the Tiger. 17 pounder gun, 102mm armour with a turret mantle and ammo is protected, and goes 50kph.
1200 made before the wars end, and saw service in the ETO
Logged
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 Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #215 on: July 16, 2006, 05:56:06 AM »
I still love my Kitty more.
Logged

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #216 on: July 16, 2006, 12:07:26 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
I dont know the Firefly, but i KNOW my kitty-cat. The King Tiger has sloped armor which makes a front shot and side shots from certain agles ricochets, as well as certian side shots to the turret ricochets as well. Though a shot to the rear is a GARUNTEED hit, as well as anything from above. So, thought the gun on the firefly is powerful, the armor's... facets? on the King Tiger make landing the shots hard. Also, im not sure about this, but i beleive the King Tiger had either ridges or reactive armor. I beleive it had one, but i cannot remember which. Either way, its hard to kill.
Never said they weren't hard to kill.  I said the 17lbr was up to the task.  

And, oh, by the way, sloped armor was hardly unique to the King Tiger.  Check out the T-34 -- heck, look at the front of the Sherman.  Slope.  So, yes, it helps, but hardly makes it impregnable.

The Tiger did not have reactive armor.  If you are referring to the zimmerit coating, it was anti-magnetic to prevent AT mines from being attached by infantry.  It didn't help one iota against your basic kenetic round.
Logged
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #217 on: July 16, 2006, 03:49:51 PM »
No, it was some sort of revolusionary armor that "reacted" to enemy shells, reducing the amount of damage done to the tank... and i know it doesnt make it impregnable, but it DOES make it damned hard to kill. Personally, i would say the King is the hardest tank to destroy in that whole era.
Logged

Offline cpxxx

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2707
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #218 on: July 16, 2006, 05:42:30 PM »
Shermans would be vulnerable, but how about this for a suggestion. When you up a Sherman you get a couple of drones like bombers. This would accurately simulate the numbers advantage the Allies had and would make for fascinating tank battles..
Logged

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #219 on: July 16, 2006, 06:24:18 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
No, it was some sort of revolusionary armor that "reacted" to enemy shells, reducing the amount of damage done to the tank... and i know it doesnt make it impregnable, but it DOES make it damned hard to kill. Personally, i would say the King is the hardest tank to destroy in that whole era.
I call BS.  Post some evidence.  If you know your "kitty" so well, it shouldn't take you long.
Logged
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #220 on: July 16, 2006, 06:44:04 PM »
Purrrr :D
Logged
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 Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #221 on: July 16, 2006, 07:36:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
I call BS.  Post some evidence.  If you know your "kitty" so well, it shouldn't take you long.


It wasnt standard on all of them. more of a prototype thing. I cannot remember what exactly it was, so researching it would be hard. all im saying is, it had a lot of very powerful armor.
Logged

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #222 on: July 16, 2006, 08:46:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
It wasnt standard on all of them. more of a prototype thing. I cannot remember what exactly it was, so researching it would be hard. all im saying is, it had a lot of very powerful armor.
Somebody is wrong and won't admit it, methinks.

Nothing wrong with being wrong.  Something wrong about not admitting it.  Just makes you look silly.


(About this time someone like Bruno or Angus will come in with some obscure reference that will make me eat crow . . . )
Logged
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #223 on: July 16, 2006, 08:47:54 PM »
No, im just saying they some experimental armor that made killing it a biatch!
Logged

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
How about a Sherman Tank?
« Reply #224 on: July 16, 2006, 08:56:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Angus
Purr on this one ;)


A good match for the Tiger. 17 pounder gun, 102mm armour with a turret mantle and ammo is protected, and goes 50kph.
1200 made before the wars end, and saw service in the ETO
Was going to ask if that was the Comet since you didn't post the name.

But I see from the .jpeg path that it is.
Logged
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 [15] 16   Go Up
« previous next »