Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 68slayr on April 11, 2007, 05:27:29 PM
-
not finished downloading :( :( :( Anyone tried the firefly?
-
Its fun, but it felt way too tough to me.
-
OK. I am WAY confused. All that I have read about the Sherman was that it had terrible armor. Their loss rate was 560%... ie each was destroyed and rebuilt over 5 times. It was called the "Ronson lighter" because it "Lite the First Time Every Time". But the Sherman we now have is only slightly less tough than the Tiger. I have hit them point blank multiple times with my T-34 and they don't die. Was the Firefly some major uparmored version???
-
Yes, the definite answer can be discovered in less than 12 hours...
amazing..maybe you guys should give the JFK assasination a shot.
-
I think 12 hours is more than enough to determine whether a notoriously weak tank IRL is excessively overmodeled in an online game.
-
It is a different version, ie Sherman Firefly. That's what I was asking: was the Sherman Firefly a major armor upgrade from normal Shermans?
-
Nope, it was not, It was simply an upgunned version of the M4A4 variant of the Sherman that featured a high-performance gun
-
Originally posted by 715
All that I have read about the Sherman was that it had terrible armor.
Don't believe everything you read.
Don't base your "knowledge" on reputation.
Early Shermans lit up quickly due to inadequate ammo storage. These inadequacies were by and large fixed, after which a Sherman was no more likely to light off than any other tank. But the reputation remained.
Many if not most US combat veterans faced combat for the first time after the Normandy invasion in mid '44. They faced mostly Tigers, Panthers, and fully upgraded/upgunned PzkwIVs. Note that the first two are heavy tanks, yet since the Sherman medium tank couldn't go toe-to-toe with them, the Sherman gets branded as "inadequate."
Wow, no surprise, the armor of the Sherman didn't seem to hold up very well against 88s and high velocity 75s. Consider, though, that by that time, the T-34 was just as much cannon fodder as the Sherman. But the T-34's reputation was already made in '41-42 when it had to face 37s and 50s.
Since I have not had the opportunity to try the Sherman out yet, I can not say whether it "feels" like it is or is not modeled correctly. But I just wanted to point out that your expectation of the tank may have been set artificially low.
-
Originally posted by E25280
Don't believe everything you read.
I was basing my comments on several sources, including excerpts from that book by the guy that was responsible for coordinating the recovery and repair of Shermans in the field (ETO). He had intimate knowledge of Shermans and he was none too impressed.
-
lets just say its a British field modification and as a result of this the sherman is now an uber tank!
We know best!
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
lets just say its a British field modification and as a result of this the sherman is now an uber tank!
We know best!
eh lets just strap a bloody huge gun to the thing
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
lets just say its a British field modification and as a result of this the sherman is now an uber tank!
We know best!
Also, the British contributed the Merlin to the Mustang (making it basically a joint British/US aircraft), the name "Mustang", and the name "Lightning" for the P-38.
-
British & aussies are our homies.
:aok
-
the brits also first used the shark mouth paint job on the P40 in north africa.
-
Originally posted by john9001
the brits also first used the shark mouth paint job on the P40 in north africa.
i thought the avg came up with that
-
:lol Is it possible the shells got RIGHT through the shermans? :lol
-
Originally posted by nickf620
i thought the avg came up with that
AVG saw pictures of Bf110Cs from Haifisch sporting them, and went from there.
-
Originally posted by 715
OK. I am WAY confused. All that I have read about the Sherman was that it had terrible armor. Their loss rate was 560%... ie each was destroyed and rebuilt over 5 times. It was called the "Ronson lighter" because it "Lite the First Time Every Time". But the Sherman we now have is only slightly less tough than the Tiger. I have hit them point blank multiple times with my T-34 and they don't die. Was the Firefly some major uparmored version???
A guy last night was able to take out my Firefly with one shot in a T-34. It took him 8 T-34s before he was able to sneak the 9th T-34 past me and hit my engine area while I was fighting a couple of Tigers. I do have to admit that being able to kill T-34s, Panzers and Tigers in one shot from 1000+ yards is pretty damn cool. First time I got to see the turret blowing off the tank animation.
ack-ack
-
Wasnt the Sherman faster than the Panzer? Right now they have the same top speed. I know the bigger gun must have added weight, but did it add THAT much?
-
What armor? Every time I've upped a Sherman since the patch I've been popped in one shot.
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Wasnt the Sherman faster than the Panzer?
No. Virtually identical top speed.
-
The "ronson" nickname came from the battle at Kasserine. Later models had different ammo handling as mentioned. The real weakness in the sherman was its inferior low velocity gun. This required that the M4 closed to almost suicidal ranges with tigers and panthers. The other weakness was the high profile. The Sherman however had good slope to its frontal armor and a thick rounded gun mantle. The Firefly was very dangerous and took a hvy toll on the germans. Normally it was deployed 1 per platoon and used in the overwatch roll (it sniped while the rest of the platoon attacked).
I did however bounce a shell from a firefly off a firefly at ~600 or so. To me this is similiar to the randomness of the damage modeling overall not the sherman per se.... I did hit a firefly in the back from 1200 or so 3 times with a T-34 with the HVAP and didnt kill it...
-
Originally posted by E25280
They faced mostly Tigers, Panthers, and fully upgraded/upgunned PzkwIVs. Note that the first two are heavy tanks, yet since the Sherman medium tank couldn't go toe-to-toe with them, the Sherman gets branded as "inadequate."
The Panther was a medium tank.
The M4A4 Sherman only had 51 mm frontal hull armor, and 76 mm frontal turret armor. The gun mantlet was also only 76 mm thick. This is more than the 1940-43 T-34-76, but less than the 1944 T-34-85.
In comparison the Tiger I had 100 mm frontal hull and turret armor, 80 mm side hull and turret armor and 110 mm gun mantlet. The Tiger’s armor was also of superior quality to all other tanks of the war. The KwK 36 L/56 gun should penetrate the Sherman’s best armor at well beyond 2000 yards.
The Panzer IV Ausf. H had 80 mm frontal hull armor and 50 mm frontal turret and gun mantlet armor. The 7.5 cm KwK 40 gun should penetrate the Sherman’s best armor at well beyond 1000 yards.
The T-34’s 76.2 mm F-34 gun using AP ammo should not penetrate the Sherman’s best armor except maybe at less than 100 yards. It should however penetrate the frontal hull armor at 500 yards. Using APCR ammo it should also penetrate the Turret at 500 yards and hull at 1000 yards.
The Sherman Firefly did not have upgraded armor, but did have a different gun mantlet which thickness varied between 38 mm and 89 mm.
-
Btw. the 76.2 mm 17-pounder used on the Sherman VC Firefly should blow a hole in everything at 1000 yards, and using APDS ammo it could even blow a hole in a Tiger at 2000 yards. The APDS ammo was not very accurate however.
-
Originally posted by Viking
Btw. the 76.2 mm 17-pounder used on the Sherman VC Firefly should blow a hole in everything at 1000 yards, and using APDS ammo it could even blow a hole in a Tiger at 2000 yards. The APDS ammo was not very accurate however.
Care to explain why I hit another Sherman in the turret at point blank and it only disabled his turret? Im not sure whether I started recording in time to catch that particular incident, so Im not sure I have any proof. Just a comment.
-
Notice he said "Should" doesn't mean its always gonna work out that way. Plus with the way the damage model is in the game you can shoot a tank in the turret over and over and your not gonna kill it just smoke the turret. Gotta put one through the hull so you get a nice secondary.
-
Originally posted by humble
TI did however bounce a shell from a firefly off a firefly at ~600 or so. To me this is similiar to the randomness of the damage modeling overall not the sherman per se.... I did hit a firefly in the back from 1200 or so 3 times with a T-34 with the HVAP and didnt kill it...
Be sure to read the readme.txt for this version. It explains the modeling of the HVAP in the T34. It is superior to the normal AP at short range only. At greater than 1000 it is only slighty better. At greater than 1500 its actually worse. So at medium to long range it is pointless to use the AH T34 HVAP.
I have hit Fireflys at point blank range (were talking measured in feet) on multiple cases with HVAP and done no damage. This into turret and track. I have given up trying to kill Fireflys with my T34; I can kill Tigers easier (which the new HVAP makes actually possible, at short range anyway).
-
Originally posted by Viking
The Panther was a medium tank.
IIRC Panther was 45 tons vs. the Sherman's roughly 30 tons. If you want to classify that as a "medium" tank (different definitions depending on where you look), that's fine, but it was definitely a "heavy" compared to the Sherman / PzkwIV / T-34/76.
-
The Panther had exceptional slope to its armor as well as a very high velocity gun (similiar to the firefly). It was considered by many as not only the best tank design of WW2 but the best until well into the 1960's. Correct armor sloping proved to be very important. The "boxlike" structure of the PzIV (and Tiger to a degree) degraded armor protection. The soviets had the best sloping by far. The Sherman is a "tweener" with excellent frontal sloping and a curved gun mantlet. It's overall armor was equal or superior to the PZIV....
-
It was a bit on the heavy side of the spectrum, but it is universally recognized as a medium tank, and the best medium tank of the war (from a performance point of view).
-
Originally posted by Serenity
Care to explain why I hit another Sherman in the turret at point blank and it only disabled his turret? Im not sure whether I started recording in time to catch that particular incident, so Im not sure I have any proof. Just a comment.
Seems to me you knocked out the turret. Blowing a hole in a tank does not necessarily kill it, especially with non-explosive penetrators. It might just make an additional viewport for the crew.
-
Sherman's finest qualities may not show in AH, - something like range and dependability (range for minimum of overhauls).
So, it was a workhorse and a Firefly could punch a hole in almost anything. Just fine.
The turret traverse is AFAIK also rather good Wasn't that the tactic against the Tigers, - swift moving (360 degs on Tiger = 1 minute?)
And the Panther. IMHO the most beautiful one, and a nasty heavy-medium (13 tonnes or so heavier than a Sherman). But also hampered with mechanical trouble if my memory serves me.
Since that is not a problem in AH, I'd love to see one there :D
BTW, the Shermie is proving itself as quite a battletank in AH, and ground warfare is now even more fun!
-
I feel the Sherman seems to be tougher than expected head on, and most everything i've had thrown at the frontal armor bounces off if the hull was at more or less than a 80` angle...
but hit it in the side {POOF!}, or the gun mantlet{BANG!},or hey-zues forbid the rear{BOOM!}----------but i digress-------------
Oh yeah and another handy feature, the HurriD punches holes right through the top of this tank at hi dive angles, no problem at all,by and by its shaping up to be just as much a death trap as any other vehicle I dare drive....I give it a thumbs up:aok
-
I'd like the T-34/85. It is a good looking tank as well, pretty capable too.
-
The firefly was I think 1 in 4 of British Shermans and none were deployed by US forces prefering I believe the A10 Tank Destroyer so one day maybe we will have US Shermans, British Cromwells, Comet,s etc and then the Firefly will be perked but for now I wouldn't change anything.
Worth noting the FF has I think the same gun as the post war British Centurian which was probably the most succesfull post war western Battle Tank.
-
What does "most successful post war battle tank" mean?
-C+
-
I think it was recognised to be superior to the US and USSR Tanks of the 40,s 50,s and possibly 60,s and was particularly succesfull in use with the Israli army. Interesting that it had a spitfire engine and the same gun as the firefly.
-
It ran on a RR Merlin?!?!?!??? :eek:
-
It had a Rolls-Royce Meteor engine, which is a derivative of the Merlin.
Only the Mark 1 and 2 had the 17 pounder, the Mark 3 was up-gunned to a 20 pounder and the Mark 5 onwards got a 105 mm rifled gun. There were many versions ending with the Mark 13 in British service. However other nations (notably Israel and South Africa) continued to use and update/develop the Centurion.
-
But Viking do you think it was one of the most succesfull post war tanks ?
-
Indeed. If not the most successful post-war tank. Much of its greatness is due to its hugely successful gun, the 105 mm L7. First used on the Centurion the L7 was the mainstay NATO tank gun of the Cold War, arming virtually every British, US and German tank from 1960 onwards. Even early versions of the M1 Abrams used the L7 (M68 in the US) until the German 120 mm smoothbore gun replaced it.