Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: AAolds on April 18, 2007, 05:39:37 AM
-
After spending a good deal of time in and fighting against the M4, I would like to suggest that it be perked or reworked to be more historically accurate. The M4 regularly kills tigers in 1 shot head on, while not dying after being shot directly by a Tiger. M4s were not known for their armored protection. The panzer, which is supposed to have thicker armor than the M4, can be killed by a Hurricane IId, while the M4 in my experience can take 40 mm shots all day. Overall, the Tiger is no longer worth uppin when an M4 can be upped at no cost and is in many ways now a superior tank to the Tiger.
What are others experiences with the M4?
I like the M4, but I think its a bit much as it is currently set up.
-
Originally posted by Pyro
The Tiger's perk value did go down by 40% as soon as the new version was out.
I expect that the Firefly will become a low level perk. I would have introduced it that way if it came out with the 75mm and 76mm Shermans but this is all we had.
I've been looking into reports about how tough Shermans and I don't see it. I've done a lot of different armor tests and have not found anything to make me think this is a tough tank to kill.[/i]
Also the Shermans turret is rounded and thicker then the panzer thus 40mms don't do as much damage.
-
Current arena stats for vehicles this camp show Sherman's at 1.15 K/D and Tigers at 6+ K/D. By comparison Panzers are in the 0.9 range and T-34's are in the 0.6-0.7 range. Numbers may not be exact but close as I was just looking at them last night.
Also, as I've discovered, the Sherman is an easy kill for an attack fighter with ord. The Tiger is not.
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Current arena stats for vehicles this camp show Sherman's at 1.15 K/D and Tigers at 6+ K/D. By comparison Panzers are in the 0.9 range and T-34's are in the 0.6-0.7 range.
The Sherman was introduced in the middle of current tour, so the the Tiger K/D stats are not very significant yet. Most kills in Tiger were achieved before the update.
Current Tiger K/D is 4.8, which is considerable lower than the ususal 6+ range. But let's wait till the stats reset at the beginning of next tour before drawing conclusions.
Interestingly, the Sherman VC was introduced 7 days ago, but has already achieved 52000 kills. Compare that to 18 days of Panzer, Tiger & T34 with 73000, 20000 and 6200 respectively...
-
The Sherman is by no means invulnerable - I've killed them in Panzers and M8s. As for the high kill numbers of the Sherman in the few days since its release, you can attribute that to everybody trying it out (and killing each other in it), not to it being some kind of Uber-ride.
It's got some nice features, and that gun is definitely a killer - however catch it down low with a 75mm shell and it blows up quite nicely. A load of 37mm up the tailpipe killed it pretty effectively as well.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Originally posted by EagleDNY
As for the high kill numbers of the Sherman in the few days since its release, you can attribute that to everybody trying it out (and killing each other in it), not to it being some kind of Uber-ride.
$.02
That's true. Of course did everybody try it, so we have a lot of kills in a short time. But: While the Sherman is about as almost easy to kill as a Panzer IV from a Tiger's point of view, it's Tiger-popping gun makes the difference.
The Sherman can get a kill on a Tiger quite easy, so if the Firefly stays unperked, I guess it will be used far more often than the Panzer in future.
Current K/D:
Sherman vs Panzer 1.6
Tiger vs Sherman: 1.7
Tiger vs Panzer: 8.1
-
I was killed with one shot each time I took up a FF, during those sorties I killed at least one of just about everything but a jeep. I killed one Tiger but it was at close range...say about 400 - 600 yards broadside; panzer would have killed it with the same shot.
All my other kills were equally as one sided but, I fired first & accurately. The only vehicle I hit with the 17pndr that didn't die out-right was a T-34, close range & at a severe angle; but I still knocked out his engine. The armor on the Sherman, including the Firefly was one of the thinnest of all the medium tanks in WWII, the Sherman Jumbo was the one with thicker armor & it was considerably slower to match.
What I have seen is the 17pndr is a very impressive killer & the Sherman dies if hit. I haven't taken up a Tiger yet, but according to History the 17pndr of the FF shouldn't penetrate as well at distances over 1,000 yards straight into the front glacis of the Tiger; yet the Tiger should kill the Sherman at any range with one shot. So head to head over 1,000 yards the Sherman should die than 9 out of 10 times; if not more like 19 out of 20.
-
Some Rookie a few days ago had no troubles killing my Firefly in one shot with his Tiger. I had another Firefly die to an IL2's guns.
ack-ack
-
I lost a Tiger to a Sherman tonight but he got about six hits on me before he finally got me. We were facing one another at moderate distance the whole time and I got at least a couple of hits on him too without taking him out but I think my hits were both low. Regardless, it wasn't a one hit kill for either of us.
-
<-----owns tigers in my M4 :D :aok
-
Had one incident with a Sherman that just would not die (or be tracked, or take damage) to cannon fire from many planes... IL-2's Huri-D's and such. Film was sent in in case there was a problem with the damage model. If you notice things like that in a new addition, or after a revision to the game, film it and send it in with what ever details you can provide (not suspicions, not accusations, ....details).
For the most part, from the air, the best luck I've had is to track the M4, and leave it. Occasionally scout for any M3's or jeeps that may try to run sups to it. So far that seems the best way to handle it until you get ord on site. Track it and leave it to others to finish off when they can.
As for on the gorund, I'll have to leave that to others. I used 3 new rounds from a T-34 to kill 1 Sherman in TT at close range, but that's the only real problem I had with one, and the local lag may have had something to do with that.
-
i tracked a sherman the other day fairly easy with a flak, cought him by surprise. he eventualy got me while i was busting up the town.
-
<--killed AAolds with a sherman 1 shot last night :aok :aok
-
I want one of these sooper shermanz too. I'm getting popped on the first hit just like everyone else.
-
My Sherman takes 1 hit or mabey 2 and gos BOOM
-
I was engaged in a "long range" duel with lefty earlier. Range varied (he moved) from 3600-2600 or so...I was using smoke to "defend" while blinking the spawn. He relocated a bit closer and we engaged at roughly 3100...I recorded 1 hit (richochet) and heard 2-3 richochets and 1 "hit" in return. I guess either my smoke or his lack of success (in killing me) led him to move closer....final range was probably 2600-2700. He hit me multiple times tracking me and I hit him twice more (richochets). I'd say it took 4 maybe even 5 total "hits" to kill the M4 and that he had an equal number of richochets total.
The FF has no ability to stand and duke it out at those ranges with the Tiger. I am suprised at the number of hits....but he was shooting thru smoke so I'd assuming he was firing on range only. Very possible multiple hits to the same spot were involved...
-
It kinda does make since to perk the Sherman VC Firefly (It's not designated a M4 according to British Designations (Which is where the M4A4 Medium tank were sent from the USA were converted))
The Tiger I may be perked not only because of a Superior 88mm KampfwagenKanone(KwK) 36 L/56 but because of it's low production rate.
The Tiger I had a production rate of approximately 1400 tanks, Compared to 7394 tanks produced of the PzKpfW IV Ausf H
The Sherman with the 17Pdr. (All Firefly variants) had about 2346 tanks made, Giving it a legitimate reason to be perked. Perking tanks merely because of superior armament does not make sense. It is the number of these tanks produced and distributed into military units that should matter.
-
The Sherman with the 17Pdr. (All Firefly variants) had about 2346 tanks made, Giving it a legitimate reason to be perked. Perking tanks merely because of superior armament does not make sense. It is the number of these tanks produced and distributed into military units that should matter.
thats what ive thought aswell but apparently not.
-
The Sherman only needs a light 5 perk points or so, would really slow down the massive numbers of Sherman's around.
-
Number produced is not the benchmark for perking.
-
Actually the firefly probably isnt really a "perk" tank. The M-26 or JS-1 would be. The FF is probably about the same speed overall as the T-34/85. If you look at the eventual release of the Panther it would be the true perk ride. It would bump the Tiger down (IMO). If we view the "easy 8" as the true LW sherman it would be an ENY equivelent of 20 (guessing)....vs the PZIV (20-25). The Tiger is perked but the firefly has no ability to handle the tiger except at close range or from ambush. The T-34/85 will be more formidable then the FF...so the FF/T34-85 are really the pony/la-7 of the ground war (when/if its "fleshed out").....from what pyro said the FF will be perked once the other sherman models come out. The smoke modeling is a bigger issue then the gun. I asked in thread if that is correct optical modeling. I do know you can see thru fog close in so maybe optics do help you see thru smoke....otherwise the easy8 will be almost as deadly as the FF (the M1 76.2 had roughly same pop as the T34/85) and had twice the rate of fire as the firefly). An Easy 8 will carve up a tiger almost as easily as the FF. If its modeled with the US equivelent to the T-34 HVAP then any of the 3 "flavors" of HVAP have roughly 150+ mm penetration at 500M and 130mm+ at 1000M.
The entire purpose of the easy was tank on tank combat, the original concept of the M4 was as a combined arms weapon. Hopefully the "E8" will have a loadout with the HVAP available (priority for HVAP went to the M-10/M18 TD units)...
If you get a correctly modeled Easy 8 {especially with some HVAP loadout option} you wont see much difference between the FF and E8 (especially if rate if fire is correctly modeled){I think the FF reload is to fast BTW}. The US M1 76.2mm was actually a very good antitank weapon...inferior to the 88mm or 76mm in Panther (and FF) but way ahead of the 7.5 cm KwK 40/L48 used on the PZIV...
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Number produced is not the benchmark for perking.
Well, why not? It makes total sense to perk it based on production rate because if someone has better equipment in actual war, you just gotta deal with it. It's not like the Geneva conventions or something states you must use better equipment sparingly. War is not a game.
-
If you want a true US "perk" tank then model the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" with the M1 76.2mm. This was a true tiger hunter normally deployed as the lead tank in a CC {combat command} colume. It was almost impervious to tiger fire.
There is nor question that the M4 was an inferior tank overall to the Pz V, PZVI and the T-34/85. The "stock" M4 was also inferior to the PzIV (IMO). This was however entirely due to the medium velocity cannon. The E8 & FF were both equipped with a better gun capable of defeating most german armor under certain conditions...so the Tiger (and other not yet modeled tanks) are not invulnerable. The FF has no advantage over the tiger and really none over the PzIV since both guns kill each other at normal range. The T-34 is still at a tremendous disadvantage (until the t-34/85 arrives)...
-
Originally posted by humble
If you want a true US "perk" tank then model the M4A3E2 "Jumbo" with the M1 76.2mm. This was a true tiger hunter normally deployed as the lead tank in a CC {combat command} colume. It was almost impervious to tiger fire.
Pershing= US perk tank
Bronk
-
It would be silly to perk the Firefly. What I'm seeing here is more of a "My Tiger is no longer impenatrable and I don't like it".
Unperk the Tiger if it's that big a deal.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Pershing= US perk tank
Bronk
Yup, but I dont know how much real combat it saw. The Jumbo saw alot of action for its limited numbers....It would be funny to watch a tiger bounce a dozen shots off the front of a jumbo ...
-
There is a great video and series of photographs of of a Pershing hunting a Tiger (think it was a Tiger II) in some city and killing it. The video starts out with a Sherman and a Pershing in trail traveling down a street when they are ambushed by a Tiger and the Sherman is knocked out. The Tiger sees the Pershing and tries to haul arse out of Dodge but doesn't quite make it as the Pershing catches up to it and kills it. The photographs were taken from some guy that was overlooking the spot where the Tiger died and caught the action on film.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
There is a great video and series of photographs of of a Pershing hunting a Tiger (think it was a Tiger II) in some city and killing it. The video starts out with a Sherman and a Pershing in trail traveling down a street when they are ambushed by a Tiger and the Sherman is knocked out. The Tiger sees the Pershing and tries to haul arse out of Dodge but doesn't quite make it as the Pershing catches up to it and kills it. The photographs were taken from some guy that was overlooking the spot where the Tiger died and caught the action on film.
ack-ack
I've seen one like this, but the German tank was a Panther which later
brews up after some of the crew try to bail out.
-
Originally posted by Rino
I've seen one like this, but the German tank was a Panther which later
brews up after some of the crew try to bail out.
P-26 vs Panther (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDnst7fAEU)
-
Originally posted by Willfly
It kinda does make since to perk the Sherman VC Firefly (It's not designated a M4 according to British Designations (Which is where the M4A4 Medium tank were sent from the USA were converted))
The Tiger I may be perked not only because of a Superior 88mm KampfwagenKanone(KwK) 36 L/56 but because of it's low production rate.
The Tiger I had a production rate of approximately 1400 tanks, Compared to 7394 tanks produced of the PzKpfW IV Ausf H
The Sherman with the 17Pdr. (All Firefly variants) had about 2346 tanks made, Giving it a legitimate reason to be perked. Perking tanks merely because of superior armament does not make sense. It is the number of these tanks produced and distributed into military units that should matter.
If things were perked according to numbers made -
Ta-152 (which used to be)
The uber (total of around 25 made) 110 version
3 cannon Lala
Seafire IIc we have (if this version ever existed, and there's doubts)
Looking at the bright side the XIV would be unperked.
So I guess it's not on numbers made.
But of course the Sherman Vc is British, so it's as good a reason as any to perk it.
-
I second that notion brother.The M4 i thought had very weak armour and I find myself getting 2 or 3 side direct hits and nothing .Only to watch him turn turret and plaster my turret in one shot .:lol Maybe I just suck:O
-
I think what a lot of you guys are failing to see is the battle field has changed with the M4 on it. The days of sitting in one spot and hammering away in your tiger are done. Just like the days of frontal assault's in tanks are over with.
Tank battles in AH have become more maneuverable. You are starting to see more guys shooting on the move. You are starting to see the use of smoke more and more. There is more communication going on between tankers. Guys calling out ranges, positions..ect. In the end tank warfare has become more realistic.
My advice would be to learn to adapt. I have killed tigers with T-34s, it is all about shooting, moving and communicating. If your guys operate as a unit it is very easy to out flank the bad guy and once you are on the flanks of any tank in AH now, it is a dead tank. Perking a tank it's the answer. More so a tank that history has shown was big on numbers. The answer is with the players, working together. Just my two cents.
-Sp0t
-
Think about it.. one reason the K/D ration of the tiger is much higher than anything else is because usually only experienced GV'ers take them out. Mostly because they are perked, but partly because the visibility isn't so hot...
Because better players tend to use the tiger, of course they're going to have a high K/D ratio.
As far as the M4.. I can hostly say I love it... it's a great tank and it feels good to be able to take out a Tiger from time to time.. but they really aren't all that indestructible. I've been killed with one hit plenty of times while driving one.
Just my .02
-
There is a problem with the GV's right now. I had a Tiger sitting at our base knocking us out with one shot in our Tigers over & over & over. I hit his Tiger at about 400 yards which is point blank range; broadside & it was a good hit just over the tracks but under the skirt & just under the turret slightly to the rear. Perfect. It didn't do a thing. He wheeled, stopped & fired. By this time I had reloaded & fired too; I died. I P.M.'d him to inquire if my last shot had at least knocked out his turret since I saw the round impact next to the gun on his turret....Nope. He was fine.
This happens but I have to say there is something up. And I also agree with Humble, a FF could not stand toe to toe with a Tiger & survive. Not in open field combat & at ranges over 1,000 yards. The Jumbo fared better because of the thicker armor but was much slower. The Pershing was a Tiger killer & could stand it's ground with a King Tiger as well. The Pershing was a late war rarity & would likely never make it into AH, but the Panther on the other hand.......
Edit: about the perking of rides; I thought it was a way to reflect the numbers of certain weapons deployed as well as it's ability to kill. Sort of a combination thing; like I would think if the Pershing were added it would be heavily perked to reflect it's extremely rare appearance on the battlefield & it's deadliness.
-
the M4 has weak armor but the gun's not bad on it' stop crying over the M4 tigers are cheaper now,get over your self if you get killed by an M4 in a tigers.
my 2cents if you dont like it i dont care.
~VansCrew~
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
the M4 has weak armor but the gun's not bad on it' stop crying over the M4 tigers are cheaper now,get over your self if you get killed by an M4 in a tigers.
my 2cents if you dont like it i dont care.
~VansCrew~
Who are you referring to?
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
the M4 has weak armor but the gun's not bad on it' stop crying over the M4 tigers are cheaper now,get over your self if you get killed by an M4 in a tigers.
my 2cents if you dont like it i dont care.
~VansCrew~
Actually the armor on the sherman is superior to the armor on the PzIV
PzIV (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
M4A4 (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
The sherman had thicker armor (with better sloping) on side & rear for both hull & turret. The PzIV had thicker armor on the tank body (~80mm to 50mm) but with much worse sloping. The sherman turret was both thicker and better sloped in front. So a sherman had better overall armor, better "hull down" armor and a significant advantage in "slope" leading to alot more richochets.....
The Sherman was more then capable of handling the PzIV's (easy 8 (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/data/m4a376w.htm))
The Easy 8's armor is actually much better then the firefly (almost all built on the M4A4 linked above). The easy 8 had thicker even better sloped armor (up to 108mm)...combined with the M1A1 76.2mm gun it will own PzIV's and give tigers something to think about. Tank rounds are susceptable to both slope (richochet) and thickness {round literally disintagrates before it penetrates}...while the T-34 is best known the sherman sloping was actually modeled after the T-34 (same as the Panther).
-
Quote:
"Certainly the US had the expertise and facilities to produce
cast AFV hulls and turrets. As another poster detailed, most of the
many M4s we produced had cast turrets, and a majority had cast
hulls. Castings, though, have certain inherent disadvantages. No
matter how metallurgically sophisticated a nation is, the physics
dictates that grain orientation cannot be controlled, and grain growth
is mostly uncontrollable, in large castings. Thus even the most
elegant tool steel alloys are not particularly strong as raw castings,
without work hardening to make a fine grain structure. Casting's main
advantages, once the tooling is built, are production rate and lower
(not higher!) technological requirements. A casting
facility--especially one that works with simple alloys--can be not
much more than a big building, an overhead crane and a furnace."
"Rolled plate, on the other hand, may not be perfect, but it can offer
fairly good and consistent grain size, work hardening, and especially
grain orientation. Welding of fabricated plate sections, if done
properly, does not compromise these advantages. The gains from plate's
metallurgical advantages more than offset the small trigonometric
differences in effective thickness from small angles of incidence of
shell impact against angled sections of cast hulls and
turrets. Sophisticated heat treating can be combined with rolling to
make very strong steel. But good rolled plate requires a very, very
expensive and complicated mill. There are not many in the world. I
believe the reason the Russians did not make tanks of plate is that
they simply did not have the mill capability."
http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html
Interesting reading.
-C+
-
Originally posted by Willfly
Well, why not? It makes total sense to perk it based on production rate because if someone has better equipment in actual war, you just gotta deal with it. It's not like the Geneva conventions or something states you must use better equipment sparingly. War is not a game.
Basically perks are assigned based on the vehicles ability to unbalance the arena... Lets say uber weapon comes along that was built in huge numbers that has the ability to kill anything in the game quite easily... If you base perks on numbers produced... everyone and their mother will be using one and you won't see anything else on the battlefield. Perk the thing based on its ability and you will see fewer of them hopefully bringing more balance to the game...
-
Interesting Reading......
Same source as above....
If by griddling you mean marking by filing, the answer is that the harder
types of armor will resist files and the softer types will not. US WWII
armor was of the softer type, about 250 BHN, while most other nations
used harder steel. Files are usually case hardened high carbon steel,
and should cut armor up to 375 BHN or so. Russian tank armor was at
400-450 BHN during the later stages of the war; the 1941 and '42 KV was
around 250. German armor started the war very hard, then lost hardness
as thickness and production quantities increased. The Germans used
face-hardened armor at first, with file-resisting hardness, then dropped
the face hardening and relied on the core hardness of 250-300 BHN,
similar to US tank armor. Late-war German armor on the front of a
Jagdpanther was measured at about 200 BHN, as was Hetzer side armor. The
Elefants were measured in the low 200's after capture by the Russians, as
early as 1943. These are the softest examples of German armor I can
recall. I would expect easy filing on them, and maybe easy griddling,
too.
Generally, hard armor is expected to break up attacking projectiles,
which it can do when it is thicker than the diameter of the projectile.
Soft armor is best at absorbing projectile impact through slower
deceleration. The switch from the earlier face-hardened or
hard-all-the-way-through steel came about when the major combatants
introduced penetrating caps on their ammo, which protected against
shatter when hitting hard surfaces. These caps were so effective that
the FH armor resisted less well than softer homogeneous armor.
-
Armor technology is always a fun read. I remember the first time I read about Zimmeret paste it was like a revelation, I had always wondered what that stuff was. We need a skin that incorporates it even though it would have no use in this game it would be cool eye candy.
The differing types of metal, milling techniques accompanied by different types of shot etc. it really gets confusing after a while. One thing you never really hear much about; WWII era Japanese armor....maybe we should start howling for some of that so we can get some M-8 & Stuart duels going in the early war arena lol
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
One thing you never really hear much about; WWII era Japanese armor....maybe we should start howling for some of that so we can get some M-8 & Stuart duels going in the early war arena lol
Hell, my favorite thing to kill Shermans and Panzers with right now is the M8. I racked up over thirteen kills in it last night. Makes for beautiful perk hauls. :D
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Who are you referring to?
in general,on 200 people cry that a M4 killed my tiger 1 shot, if you see some one tyep that why would you go out vs M4's in a tiger,it's just people think their tigers are better then that persons.
-
Originally posted by humble
Actually the armor on the sherman is superior to the armor on the PzIV
PzIV (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
M4A4 (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
The sherman had thicker armor (with better sloping) on side & rear for both hull & turret. The PzIV had thicker armor on the tank body (~80mm to 50mm) but with much worse sloping. The sherman turret was both thicker and better sloped in front. So a sherman had better overall armor, better "hull down" armor and a significant advantage in "slope" leading to alot more richochets.....
The Sherman was more then capable of handling the PzIV's (easy 8 (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/data/m4a376w.htm))
The Easy 8's armor is actually much better then the firefly (almost all built on the M4A4 linked above). The easy 8 had thicker even better sloped armor (up to 108mm)...combined with the M1A1 76.2mm gun it will own PzIV's and give tigers something to think about. Tank rounds are susceptable to both slope (richochet) and thickness {round literally disintagrates before it penetrates}...while the T-34 is best known the sherman sloping was actually modeled after the T-34 (same as the Panther).
this may be true but the americans called it the "Ronsin" because just like the lighter,it would go up in flams with one hit.
~VansCrew~
-
The going up in flames with one hit was because the ammo wasn't protected so hot shrapnel could set it off. Later in the war this issue was solved and no longer was such a problem.
-
It ran on highly flammable gasoline instead of diesel. That was my understanding of the moniker at least.
-
All german tanks ran on gasoline at the time the Sherman earned the nickname. While in fact some allied tanks of the time were running on diesel.
-
Could be, I never studied the engines, only top speeds etc. That is just what I was told was the reason by an old timer who was a tanker in WWII, he was referring to the term "Tommy Cooker" specifically as he was a Brit.
-
Originally posted by Willfly
Well, why not? It makes total sense to perk it based on production rate because if someone has better equipment in actual war, you just gotta deal with it. It's not like the Geneva conventions or something states you must use better equipment sparingly. War is not a game.
Not really. If it were real, you would have to choose what country you want to fight for. Then your selection of vehicles would be limited by what your country could manufacture or otherwise acquire. Production rates were different for different countries, even when they were building crappy aircraft. I wouldn't perk an IL2, just because they didn't build many.
-
Originally posted by PhatHat
Not really. If it were real, you would have to choose what country you want to fight for. Then your selection of vehicles would be limited by what your country could manufacture or otherwise acquire. Production rates were different for different countries, even when they were building crappy aircraft. I wouldn't perk an IL2, just because they didn't build many.
They made thousands of IL-2's, tens of thousands actually. They had 250 of them built when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union.
-
Originally posted by PhatHat
I wouldn't perk an IL2, just because they didn't build many.
The Il-2 is one of the most produced planes of all times. Well over 30.000 built.
-
Originally posted by VansCrew1
this may be true but the americans called it the "Ronsin" because just like the lighter,it would go up in flams with one hit.
~VansCrew~
Actually the British called them "ronsons" and the germans called them "tommycookers". This was due to the ammo storage not use of gasoline.
-
Just saying what the vet told me & he definitely said it was the gasoline that caused the fires to burn so brutally. I have no doubt that history says it's the ammo that those names are linked to (I haven't investigated it) I just took him at his word. :aok
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
They made thousands of IL-2's, tens of thousands actually. They had 250 of them built when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union.
I was speaking of "What if they had only made 10 or 20 IL2's. That would not be a good reason to perk it. I'm sure there are a few really mediocre aircraft that were made in small numbers. Production numbers alone are not a good reason to perk a vehicle.