M4 76's front armor too strong?

[THRASH99]

Please show me one example of a Tiger surviving hundreds of hits.


 
Ever thought that's the result of completely different tact is & battlefield conditions? Tigers could & were killed in one shot under right circumstances. Look up armor penetration data for guns like the 76mm on the M4A3(76w), The Sherman Firefly, the T-34/85, SU-100... even the source I presented above should give you a clue.

 Source? Which T-34? What time in the war? Which battle, under which conditions? Why should a T-34/85 ram a Tiger when he can penetrate the armor?


This whole mix of myths, exaggerations and mixed up facts is hilarious at times... but as this is the bug report forum, I'm out here. But I recommend reading books.. and not just that kind filled with selective anecdotes and no hard data.

Snailman out.

Have you seen Tiger 88mm footage? Mostly anything it hit it died, blew up, pretty much just didn't come out alive. When an 88mm hit a tank, it would go through the whole tank and kill the crew within the impact. Sure an M4 can take a hit or two of 88mm, but it shouldn't last like it does in AH. If you want to see hundreds of hits that the Tiger took, go to youtube, type in Tiger tank, should be the second video down. It says that in a 6 hour engagement, the Tiger got hit 227 times despite the damage it had, but still returned safely home( This is probably the data that you're looking for?)  . That's how a Tiger should be modeled, the only threat that could possibly match it was the VC Firefly, the regular M4s would have to shoot at it from behind really close up in able to actually kill it, not the front, shots from the gun would just bounce off the frontal armor on the Tiger.

[Lusche]

the regular M4s would have to shoot at it from behind really close up in able to actually kill it, not the front, shots from the gun would just bounce off the frontal armor on the Tiger.

[THRASH99]

(Image removed from quote.)

Did you go to youtube, type in Tiger tank, and look at the second video down? It'll explain everything that I'm talking about, how it should be modeled, how many hits it should take, etc. Distance for the regular M4s was obviously at close range, the barrel on the tank wasn't that long, it couldn't even penetrate the Tiger's armor from long distance, approximately 800 yrds out it couldn't do anything to the Tiger. Just look at the video of the Tiger tank and reply once you've had a good look at it.

[Lusche]

Did you go to youtube, type in Tiger tank, and look at the second video down? It'll explain everything that I'm talking about, how it should be modeled, how many hits it should take, etc. Distance for the regular M4s was obviously at close range, the barrel on the tank wasn't that long, it couldn't even penetrate the Tiger's armor from long distance, approximately 800 yrds out it couldn't do anything to the Tiger. Just look at the video of the Tiger tank and reply once you've had a good look at it.

Ok.. I'll bite one last time


I) What is a "regular" Sherman? The M4A3(75) is one. The M4A3(76)w is one too. One could penetrate the tigers front, the other could not.And in AH, the M4A3(75) will have the same experience: It's shells will just bounce off the Tiger's front.
Be precise in what you are saying. (That's the crux with TV shows: They just say "Sherman" when they are talking about a specific early model, and the dolts here freak out when a different type Sherman with a high velocity cannon kills a Tiger "CH200; "WFT, the game has it all wrong, I saw it on YOUTUBE!!!"



II)  Keyword: Critical assessment of sources. Thus Youtube videos are not a particular strong reference, as well as History channel shows or similar. Don't just repeat common myths or hearsay. Try to educate yourself about details. First step would be researching on the net. Keep attention to websites presenting fact, details and morst important: Give sources for their claims. Second step would be reading books. And be critical about what you are reading. Always ask yourself: Do you know something.. or do you just believe something?

Some websites that have some good information about he Tiger or WWII AFV's in general:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html

http://gva.freeweb.hu/ A very detailed site about gun & armor performance, giving penetration data from RW tests for all kind of guns.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/ The American fighting vehicle database

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp A bit difficult to navigate on at first, but giving a tremendous amount of penetration data, as weel as all it's sources for it.






III) Then avoid blunt errors like making flat claims without having factual detail knowledge." M4 had thinnest armor" is wrong - You would know that if you ever read up about tank development in WW2.  "Tiger 88 will kill any tank at any range" is so much wrong it's almost hilarious. It's typical TV fiction or comicbook stuff.

The tiger was a very dangerous foe when playing his strengths, and could dominate the battlefiled if the conditions were right. But was not the invincible wondertank of wet schoolboy dreams.

[Spikes]

I still don't see how the Tiger didn't kill the M4 at point blank with 2 roundds to the hull. Oh and yes I tried hitting him in the turret but it bounced off, so I didn't want to do that again eh.

[Kenne]

(Image removed from quote.)

what is DFP?
and is you table correct, the tiger CANNOT pierce either Shermans DFP??

[Lusche]

what is DFP?
and is you table correct, the tiger CANNOT pierce either Shermans DFP??

Drivers front plate, and if I recall correctly, there is simply no data on that for the Shermans..

[THRASH99]

OK.. I'll bite one last time


I) What is a "regular" Sherman? The M4A3(75) is one. The M4A3(76)w is one too. One could penetrate the tigers front, the other could not.And in AH, the M4A3(75) will have the same experience: It's shells will just bounce off the Tiger's front.
Be precise in what you are saying. (That's the crux with TV shows: They just say "Sherman" when they are talking about a specific early model, and the dolts here freak out when a different type Sherman with a high velocity cannon kills a Tiger "CH200; "WFT, the game has it all wrong, I saw it on YOUTUBE!!!"



II) Keyword: Critical assessment of sources. Thus Youtube videos are not a particular strong reference, as well as History channel shows or similar. Don't just repeat common myths or hearsay. Try to educate yourself about details. First step would be researching on the net. Keep attention to websites presenting fact, details and most important: Give sources for their claims. Second step would be reading books. And be critical about what you are reading. Always ask yourself: Do you know something.. or do you just believe something?

Some websites that have some good information about he Tiger or WWII AF V's in general:

http://www.Prado.com/armorsite/tiger1.HTML
http://www..com/tiger.HTML

http://Gav.freeweb.HI/ A very detailed site about gun & armor performance, giving penetration data from RW tests for all kind of guns.

http://overdub.50megs.com/ The American fighting vehicle database

http://www.vehicles.com/default.asp A bit difficult to navigate on at first, but giving a tremendous amount of penetration data, as wheel as all it's sources for it.






III) Then avoid blunt errors like making flat claims without having factual detail knowledge." M4 had thinnest armor" is wrong - You would know that if you ever read up about tank development in WW2.  "Tiger 88 will kill any tank at any range" is so much wrong it's almost hilarious. It's typical TV fiction or comicbook stuff.

The tiger was a very dangerous foe when playing his strengths, and could dominate the battlefiled if the conditions were right. But was not the invincible wondertank of wet schoolboy dreams.

It was posted by the military channel, ACTUAL results that were recorded. The M4 75/76, doesn't matter which one, they can't kill a Tiger in less than 3 hits from the ranges you posted, that's AH penetration chart, not real life. What do you mean M4 didn't have thin armor??!! Explain why they were recorded to have thin armor and caught fire easily. Go to youtube, they have a series of M4's armor tests from a Tiger's round, the Tiger tank video I described, they show you anything you want to see about the two tanks. Books and charts don't show enough data/info then what was recorded in videos. Unless you look at the Tiger video I told you about on youtube or more Sherman info, you really have no reason to continue this post.

[THRASH99]

Military channel vs History Channel. Military tells what was actually recorded by facts of it. History channel shows was it "supposed" to be on it, not showing accurate facts/data.

[THRASH99]

Ok.. I'll bite one last time


I) What is a "regular" Sherman? The M4A3(75) is one. The M4A3(76)w is one too. One could penetrate the tigers front, the other could not.And in AH, the M4A3(75) will have the same experience: It's shells will just bounce off the Tiger's front.
Be precise in what you are saying. (That's the crux with TV shows: They just say "Sherman" when they are talking about a specific early model, and the dolts here freak out when a different type Sherman with a high velocity cannon kills a Tiger "CH200; "WFT, the game has it all wrong, I saw it on YOUTUBE!!!"



II)  Keyword: Critical assessment of sources. Thus Youtube videos are not a particular strong reference, as well as History channel shows or similar. Don't just repeat common myths or hearsay. Try to educate yourself about details. First step would be researching on the net. Keep attention to websites presenting fact, details and morst important: Give sources for their claims. Second step would be reading books. And be critical about what you are reading. Always ask yourself: Do you know something.. or do you just believe something?

Some websites that have some good information about he Tiger or WWII AFV's in general:

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html

http://gva.freeweb.hu/ A very detailed site about gun & armor performance, giving penetration data from RW tests for all kind of guns.

http://afvdb.50megs.com/ The American fighting vehicle database

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp A bit difficult to navigate on at first, but giving a tremendous amount of penetration data, as weel as all it's sources for it.






III) Then avoid blunt errors like making flat claims without having factual detail knowledge." M4 had thinnest armor" is wrong - You would know that if you ever read up about tank development in WW2.  "Tiger 88 will kill any tank at any range" is so much wrong it's almost hilarious. It's typical TV fiction or comicbook stuff.

The tiger was a very dangerous foe when playing his strengths, and could dominate the battlefiled if the conditions were right. But was not the invincible wondertank of wet schoolboy dreams.

Plus your info/data that your putting up doesn't even make any sense. As I told that a Tiger was in a 6 hour engagement and took 227 hits from M4 Shermans at those ranges, not the Firefly model. Despite the damage it had, it STILL managed to return home safely. All the Shermans it fought in that 6 hours, were at the ranges you posted and didn't kill him in 2-3 shots like it does in
AH, which is bogus. That just obviously proves that the Tiger in AH is really screwed up and modeled wrong from M4 75/76's hits. As for the M4 75/76, why do you think it's so easy to kill from the side, it has the THINNEST ARMOR there! The front, can shake off very little hits, 88mm SHOULDN'T be hitting it in the front twice and bouncing off, it should be going through 1 time and killing him, that's just bs if that happens.

[Sperky]

Plus your info/data that your putting up doesn't even make any sense. As I told that a Tiger was in a 6 hour engagement and took 227 hits from M4 Shermans at those ranges, not the Firefly model. Despite the damage it had, it STILL managed to return home safely. All the Shermans it fought in that 6 hours, were at the ranges you posted and didn't kill him in 2-3 shots like it does in
AH, which is bogus. That just obviously proves that the Tiger in AH is really screwed up and modeled wrong from M4 75/76's hits. As for the M4 75/76, why do you think it's so easy to kill from the side, it has the THINNEST ARMOR there! The front, can shake off very little hits, 88mm SHOULDN'T be hitting it in the front twice and bouncing off, it should be going through 1 time and killing him, that's just bs if that happens.

Hey Thrash,

So far, the only source you've cited is a YouTube video that tells the story of 1 Tiger.  No offense...it's not a case study that provides conclusive proof of your claim that all Tigers can survive that sort of damage and the AH Tiger model is "screwed up".  Can you cite any source besides YouTube that would support your claims?

[THRASH99]

Hey Thrash,

So far, the only source you've cited is a YouTube video that tells the story of 1 Tiger.  No offense...it's not a case study that provides conclusive proof of your claim that all Tigers can survive that sort of damage and the AH Tiger model is "screwed up".  Can you cite any source besides YouTube that would support your claims?

If you read spikes report, you would obviously know what I'm talking about

[Sperky]

If you read spikes report, you would obviously know what I'm talking about

Really?  What I am challenging are YOUR comments...what sources can you cite to support the comments YOU made???- not the ones that Spikes made or what Spikes experienced in game.

[321BAR]

I still don't see how the Tiger didn't kill the M4 at point blank with 2 roundds to the hull. Oh and yes I tried hitting him in the turret but it bounced off, so I didn't want to do that again eh.

the rounds went straight through the tank and did no major damage. at point blank those AP rounds on a wet storage model would just punch holes and would not explode. the sherman turret at the mantlet is the most armored portion of the sherman. 89mm of armor WITHOUT the mantlet included. if you shot a little to the left or right you would have turreted the sherman or killed it... unless the angle forced a deflection on the shape of the freaking turret. (aka. a sherman turret is just plain annoying.)

[THRASH99]

Really?  What I am challenging are YOUR comments...what sources can you cite to support the comments YOU made???- not the ones that Spikes made or what Spikes experienced in game.

Challenging mine??!  Look at what spikes posted as he said a Sherman hit him once and killed him, look at the report recorded about a Tiger getting hit from the same distance by the same tank and it survived 227 hits from all other M4 Shermans, not the firefly model, it didn't die, and managed to drive home safely after that 6 hour engagement, do these two reports match to you, I didn't think so!