M4 Firefly?

[Ack-Ack]

Who doesnt like Zaloga?

I believe the individual you and I got into a discussion on whether or not any of the 76mm Shermans landed at the beaches on Normandy wasn't a big fan of Zaloga.  Of course that was probably because Zaloga's work showed this particular individual to be incorrect.

ack-ack

[Ack-Ack]

Anyone know why U.S. fireflys never saw combat? I mean if you got them, you might as well use them.

Because the US was already working on the M26 Pershing and felt the 90mm tank gun was just as effective as the 17 pounder.


ack-ack

[Nemisis]

ah. yeah, I guess that would make sense.

[GtoRA2]

I believe the individual you and I got into a discussion on whether or not any of the 76mm Shermans landed at the beaches on Normandy wasn't a big fan of Zaloga.  Of course that was probably because Zaloga's work showed this particular individual to be incorrect.

ack-ack

Oh yeah him, I thought you may have meant people that know what they are talking about. 

[jamdive]

Just some more info... too much time has elapsed and I couldn't edit my original post further.  I also looked at the Tiger's 88mm and the projectile weights.

Tank	Projectile Weight	Muzzle Velocity	Maximum Armor Penetration
M4 Firefly	17lbs	2900 ft/sec	178mm
M4A3(76)	15.4lbs	2600 ft/sec	134mm
Tiger I	22.5lbs	2536 ft/sec	154mm

At what range are these figures derived from? 50 ft.? I call BS.

[Nemisis]

actually, they are correct. Granted they give the maximum velocity and armor penetration the gun is capable of, not the measurments at combat ranges.

[jamdive]

actually, they are correct. Granted they give the maximum velocity and armor penetration the gun is capable of, not the measurments at combat ranges.

Maybe on paper, Most of those values are taken when compared everyone elses armour but the Germans. The Brits actually tested many guns on an abandoned tiger and found out just how over matched they where. I think it was in Tunisia, I'll check my books. A table I have uses the average results, that the 76mm M1A1  needed to get within 700m to penetrate the weakest of a tigers frontal armour. The 75mm had no successfull frontal armour penetrations and had to be within 100m to penetrate the 80mm side armour of the tiger. The 17lber worked at most ranges that the tiger could kill it at. As far as using IL2's on a tigers turret top and engine lid, after march 1944, they increased the armour from 25mm to 40mm. Do the math on the IL2's 37mm.  T/d,  40/37 the armour thickness over matches the diameter of the cannon, so these 1 pass tiger kills, to me anyway, are all fantasy (in the late war arenas anyway).

Im not so sure about the situations where the lone N1K1 flys by and does the oblique strafe and the tigers track just falls off and the tank lurches over on its side. Yeah right. Pull up some photos of a tiger track and see just how thick the plating is and how its hinged together. More fantasy IMO.  Unless the tank is moving, its not going to shed the track and keel over to one side even if a link is broken. I know its just a game, but man, could at least have a goal of 50%  reality. Everone should read the stories of these tiger tank commanders. Most of them sound the same.

[Nemisis]

well Jamdive, seeing as the tiger is avaliable in MW, then we must have the tiger with the 25mm armor.


And how many 20mm rds do you think it would take to sever one of the connecters? The niki has 4x 20mm's, what is the ROF for them? And how many rds will hit the track assuming a 3 second burst?

[BigKev03]

I think the perks for the Firefly are due to the gun capability more than anything.  The armor on the Firelfy is slightly better on the turret but other than that it is what an average sherman would have.  But that 17lb gun is very good.  Though as another poster stated at longer ranges it does lose its kinetic energry faster than the 88mm but it still is a dangerous gun and has to be repsected.  I think the perks are about right. 

BigKev

[SmokinLoon]

well Jamdive, seeing as the tiger is avaliable in MW, then we must have the tiger with the 25mm armor.


And how many 20mm rds do you think it would take to sever one of the connecters? The niki has 4x 20mm's, what is the ROF for them? And how many rds will hit the track assuming a 3 second burst?

If the convergence is perfect, and if the point of impact is exactly where it needs to be, and if there are multiple hits on the exact point of the weakest part of the track... then yes.  But, imo... a bunch of 20mm HE rounds, regardless of where they hit, should be of little concern for any tank in the game.  The worst should be the loss of the top MG and some scraped up paint.  The .50 BMG rounds, when massed, and when impacting on the top of the engine compartment or weakest part of the track should have far more capability to harm a tank than most any air to ground HE in AH.

[Nemisis]

Loon, while that is true, we have players emptying their guns at tanks (I've even had my tiger strafed by a Spit I), rearming, and doing it some more. While I think its more an act of defiance and a release of frustration than a serious attempt to damage them, with all those bullets hitting the tracks, someone is going to score a lucky hit.


As to the .50's damaging lightly armored components of a vehicle, I think the reason we can't is that compounding damage to the armor from rounds that failed to penetrate isn't modled (15mm of armor plate may stop a .50, but can the weakened and thinned armor (it will likely create a dent, which means the metal must strech, making in thinner) stop the second round, or the 3rd round?). Personally, i would love to see this modeled upto a point (the M8 shouldn't kill a tiger regardless of how many rounds are fired).

[jamdive]

And how many 20mm rds do you think it would take to sever one of the connecters? The niki has 4x 20mm's, what is the ROF for them? And how many rds will hit the track assuming a 3 second burst?

So your saying a 20mm round can penetrate a 56mm steel plate and then break a 28mm pin after it some how went through a 1/2" track guard?  Whats a 20mm good for? On a good day and a perfectly flat shot at 100m or less maybe 25-27mm of plate steel. Where do you think your goin to get a perpedicular hit on the track? Even with the wide combat tracks there is very little track exposed. Even if a wheel is knocked off it still has 2 more per axil and would still be able to move. I seriously doubt youd get multiple rounds hitting in the exact same spot diving in with an airplane on a strafe to support your theory that the cannon will just bore a hole with multiple hits.

[Jabberwock]

As far as using IL2's on a tigers turret top and engine lid, after march 1944, they increased the armour from 25mm to 40mm. Do the math on the IL2's 37mm.  T/d,  40/37 the armour thickness over matches the diameter of the cannon, so these 1 pass tiger kills, to me anyway, are all fantasy (in the late war arenas anyway).

427 of the 1,349 Tigers produced were made between March 1944 and August 1944, when production shut down. So, the 40 mm roof armour applies to less than a third of Tigers made.

The NS-37 used the IL-2 was tested as good for 48 mm / 500 m / 90 degrees. Source is Tony Williams: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm

Another figure I've seen published quotes 52 mm/ 200 m / 90 degrees.

Muzzle velocity is typically quoted at 880-900 m/sec.
 
Add an extra 85-100 m/sec from an Il-2 doing 300-350 kph and this adds up to quite a formidable round.

[jamdive]

427 of the 1,349 Tigers produced were made between March 1944 and August 1944, when production shut down. So, the 40 mm roof armour applies to less than a third of Tigers made.

 

First of all, you have to be carfull when looking up production numbers on the tigers. Every time there was an update, such as a new track system, gun sight, retro-fitting, ect. they counted that as a new tiger produced in some tables. More more readings, (if your really interested in actualities) look up some of the data on the percent of tigers operational vs. the panzers. Its the same if not better. The tiger, dispite its weight, could operate on softer terrain than most tanks. When looking up the armour thicknesses, youll see one of the thin hull armour displayed. Dont forget to add 25mm x 3 for the number of interlaced bogie wheels. There is also very little clearance to allow a shell to actually hit the turret ring. The round would be halved by the time in made it to the ring. Allied shells also had a problem of being to soft, at certain high velocities the shells would shatter instead of sticking to the target and making penetration. If you dont belive me on this, fire a 30-06 at a tub of water and see if it makes it out the other side, then do the same with a 12ga. slug and compare the results. Same principal. Ive contacted my friend who is history major for the civil war and WWII in Virginia to see if he has any actual data on what these weapons did vs. the calculations of some twidget with a slide rule. Reading some of these tank commanders memoirs, these tables and the actual accounts are in large conflict.

[Nemisis]

OK Jamdive, let me put it this way: Realism has to take a back seat to game play.

Either convince HTC to make the VH's require 6000lbs of ord to destroy, make it so killing ammo bunkers only cuts the ord you can take in half, or accept that (for reasons of game play) planes NEED to be able to track tanks.

for your tiger thing: since they are avalable in MW, then clearly we don't have the tigers with the increased top armor or any of the modifications made after '43.

And based on your comment about the tigers armor being thicker than the diamater of the Il-2's gun, it seems you think that armor penetration is based on the gun's caliber. Clearly that isn't so, other wise the '88 couldn't penetrate more than 88mm. I don't care if you have 70mm of armor, if you get a 37mm round going fast enough, then it will punch through that armor.