Why perk the tiger anymore? (Film inside)

[Madkow]

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ocmlzdztmhz/Tiger_1835.ahf   

Is it just me or is the new M4's armor really that good?

[Digr1]

M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced. Instead of unperking the tiger correct the armor in the M4

[gyrene81]

Sherman armor in AH is not crap. Seems like anything over ~500 yds takes 2 or 3 shots with 75mm Panzer. Last T/34-85 I tried on it took 3 rounds and I got taken out by a single round from the Sherman I was shooting at.

[Lusche]

M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced.

Amazing how much fail one can stuff in just two sentences 

[Soulyss]

Just took a look at the film, you were 2600 yards away.  Just did a quick google search and came across this website, I don't have the source they site so I can't say how valid it is, or the angle of impact that they used as a reference but if I'm reading the charts right the Tiger SHOULDN'T be able to penetrate the front of the hull or turret of the Sherman at the ranges you were firing at.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

[usvi]

I have not had one AP/HVAP round from an 85mm do anything but bounce off the front hull armor of the new M4s at any range.
The same hits would be solid/kill hits on the Firefly but not on the new tanks.
Is this due to an increased slope of armor on the American M4 or did the British Firefly have thinner armor?

[Soulyss]

I have not had one AP/HVAP round from an 85mm do anything but bounce off the front hull armor of the new M4s at any range.
The same hits would be solid/kill hits on the Firefly but not on the new tanks.
Is this due to an increased slope of armor on the American M4 or did the British Firefly have thinner armor?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,289415.0.html

[Yossarian]

I've found that a single 75mm HE round to the rear side armour of the M4 (seems to be either side, not sure about the back armour) destroys the tank almost every time.

[SEseph]

M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced. Instead of unperking the tiger correct the armor in the M4

+1  in WWII it was general practice to engage a Tiger with 5 M4's for the sole reason the tiger would typically take out 3 before the other two could manuever in for a kill shot, which was on the rear.. and typically needed to be close/point blank range..

[AWwrgwy]

More anecdotal evidence please.



wrongway

[2bighorn]

More anecdotal evidence please.

Well, in this case stats actually confirms it. After D day, allied/axis losses were of 3:1 ratio
(only tank losses to gunfire, ie another tank or AT gun, all other losses excluded)

[Rino]

     You mean where the Germans were sitting in defensive positions while the Allies were attacking?  Operation
Goodwood and the Bocage offensive spring to mind.  Where the Allies were forced into using chokepoints that
were fairly easily covered.  During the dash across France, the losses were much lighter.

[LLogann]

At least he did point out how short the French fall..........  That wasn't very FAIL.   

Amazing how much fail one can stuff in just two sentences 

[Lusche]

Well, in this case stats actually confirms it. After D day, allied/axis losses were of 3:1 ratio
(only tank losses to gunfire, ie another tank or AT gun, all other losses excluded)

Well, if you wanttoi use stats...


Current tour

Tiger vs
M4(75)      Kills 115 Deaths 1 K/D 115
M4(76)w  Kills 949 Deaths 145 K/D 6.54


Yea, Tiger is porked and M4's are overmodeled.  

[Lusche]

At least he did point out how short the French fall..........  That wasn't very FAIL.   

He was wrong on that matter too.