The M4 Firefly, a perfect tank...

[Charge]

Add to the list the very broad view through the gunsight, where as in other tanks the view is restricted. 

-C+

[Urchin]

Why does the Tiger I have a positive K/D ratio against the Firefly if it is as indestructible as you all claim?

Karnak, I am certainly not a GVer, but I think the K/D ratio could easily be explained by how the tanks are used and a general understanding that the defender (often laying in wait for anyone to come along) has the advantage in the ground game.

The is exacerbated by the fact that the Tiger is quite expensive, perk-wise, which would lead to more cautious use and much more use on defense.  The Sherman Firefly, on the other hand, is indisputably much better than the Panzer IV and not terribly expensive and so would see a lot more use on offense when someone wanted the best tank for their buck. 

In the above scenario, you may well see a Tiger ambush and kill 2 or 3 Fireflies and then be taken down, where in the same situation he would have killed 10 or 15 Panzer IVs and T-34s and then rolled blithely back to base.

Just a thought.

[HPriller]

I don't get these threads, whining about minor details of tanks in what is primarily an air combat sim?

two words:

Aces *HIGH*

[Angus]

Well, after all, the Firefly really has FIREPOWER! The 17 pdr was one of the best anti-armor weapons of WW2.

[whels]

I don't get these threads, whining about minor details of tanks in what is primarily an air combat sim?

two words:

Aces *HIGH*

a few words for you, from HTC front page.

Welcome to the Internets Premier WWII Combat Experience.
Engage in  Air Land and Sea combat.

[Lusche]

I don't get these threads, whining about minor details of tanks in what is primarily an air combat sim?

GV's make up 30% of all kills & deaths in AH. Doesn't look "minor" to me.

[USCH]

Why does the Tiger I have a positive K/D ratio against the Firefly if it is as indestructible as you all claim?

I (COLLEEN) have been known to tank, and tank in a Tiger, IMO 90% of all tigers users do not fire at another tank without a 3,000m+ range or they are siting on concrete and can tower out when an M4 1shots there turret and smokes it from up and further than 3,000m from any direction.
 Anyone who does not do this and "takes the tiger out on an offencive" rarely come back home alive and that is IMO 99% of all tiger deaths.

The other 1% of tiger deaths is the moron who takes one out from a camped hanger expecting NOT to get 1 shot killed like a total noob.

The original post is spot on IMO as a tanker. I'd like to think that under this current question my opinion it is valued.

The Tiger has vary little "fear factor" anymore since the M4 has come.
In less than one month befor i pretty much gave up tanking(2or3 months ago), I lost over 5,000 GV perks by taking the Tiger out on every GV run that ENY would allow.

On every mission, and i rarely came home alive even after getting a +5 or so K/D every run. By the end of one 30day month i had lost all 5,000perks. Had I or anyone else done that in the M4 the K/D would be the same or better and there perk loss would be 0.

The M4 is the king of aces' high ground and will be until all GV defult colors are the same, and the M4 damage model is corrected. As it is now the entire turret seems to be 5000m thick in the front, and the "sloped" armor of the T-34 has rubbed off on the M4, I have bounced off more Tiger 88mm rounds off M4's than i have off T34's and as a squad m8 would say in a southern drawl "that's just wroooooong man"

It is possable someone has proof that an 88mm has bounce off an M4 at 200m or less (in real life)but i doubt it.

+1 on the post
+1 on introducing the
KING TIGER[/size][/size][/b]

[Angus]

The Firefly is simply the best gun to kill a Tiger with. Apart from (possibly) another Tiger. And it's cheaper. And the world of AH II is not as the real battles in WWII, where the Tigers were both more frequent than Fireflies, as well as being used as an ambush weapon, - that means defensive...

[Karnak]

Karnak, I am certainly not a GVer, but I think the K/D ratio could easily be explained by how the tanks are used and a general understanding that the defender (often laying in wait for anyone to come along) has the advantage in the ground game.

The is exacerbated by the fact that the Tiger is quite expensive, perk-wise, which would lead to more cautious use and much more use on defense.  The Sherman Firefly, on the other hand, is indisputably much better than the Panzer IV and not terribly expensive and so would see a lot more use on offense when someone wanted the best tank for their buck. 

In the above scenario, you may well see a Tiger ambush and kill 2 or 3 Fireflies and then be taken down, where in the same situation he would have killed 10 or 15 Panzer IVs and T-34s and then rolled blithely back to base.

Just a thought.

Oh, I agree the Firefly is too cheap in relation to the Tiger I.  I am just curious why the threads claim it is also more durable as that certainly wasn't my experience.

[Lusche]

Oh, I agree the Firefly is too cheap in relation to the Tiger I.  I am just curious why the threads claim it is also more durable as that certainly wasn't my experience.

In my experience, it's the only tank that does really benefit from a hull-down position, for it's turret is very hard to destroy. In comparison, the Tiger Turret is pretty weak from the front (and I'm not even talking about the T34/85 paper turret)...

And from the viewpoint of a Hurri D pilot, the Sherman is the 2nd most difficult tank to kill , after the T-34/76

[USCH]

In my experience, it's the only tank that does really benefit from a hull-down position, for it's turret is very hard to destroy. In comparison, the Tiger Turret is pretty weak from the front (and I'm not even talking about the T34/85 paper turret)...

And from the viewpoint of a Hurri D pilot, the Sherman is the 2nd most difficult tank to kill , after the T-34/76

I agree completly

[Angus]

WOOT? I always have the worst problem with them Tigers.

[stephen]

Thank you for the input fellas...
With the addition of the ww1 arena, I assume that any fixes are far off, but im glad to see that we are able to keep certain failings visible, and current, so that they might be addressd in the near future.

<S>

[BigKev03]

I think the M4 should be perked more than it is as historically about 2000 were built compared to the 1500 or so tigers.  So the M4 is on average 4-6 perks while the tiger is 20-30 with only a 500 vehicle production difference??  As far as anothe rposted stated about the M4 beign the second hardest tank to take out.  I have found a weakness with the M4 when you use the B25 against it but it is a hard shot to make and most of the time I screw it up.

BigKev

[E25280]

I think the M4 should be perked more than it is as historically about 2000 were built compared to the 1500 or so tigers.  So the M4 is on average 4-6 perks while the tiger is 20-30 with only a 500 vehicle production difference??  As far as anothe rposted stated about the M4 beign the second hardest tank to take out.  I have found a weakness with the M4 when you use the B25 against it but it is a hard shot to make and most of the time I screw it up.

BigKev

Perking or not perking an ride in AH is not dependent on numbers produced.  In fact, I believe the only ride that was ever perked only due to small production numbers was the Ta-152, and it is no longer perked because it's performance simply doesn't warrant it.