Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: TheMan on August 08, 2008, 11:44:04 AM
-
Hello everyone , I would like to bring up the topic of the sherman. Over the past few days ive been doing nothing but gv'n with friends on the game. And it has come to my attention that the shermans armor is very over modeled. The round of a panzer should be able to 1 hit a sherman every time no questions asked. Yet it takes 2 to 3 rounds to kill him , if your first shots aren't ricocheted. Normally I wouldnt bother posting this but since the new patch is coming out very soon , I thought id mention it and hope Hitech Creations fix the sherman.
See you on the battle fields Rondar. :rock
-
We have a Sherman VC Firefly, not the Sherman M4. The one we have has better armor and a MUCH better gun. (British 17 pounder) It can take rounds from a Panzer IV.
-
To be honest on the rare occasion that I'm actually tanking I usually kill Fireflies within 1-2 hits the the front plate.
-
:cry :cry :cry
-
The poster seems to confuse the Panzer IV with a Tiger.
Panzer IV's weren't that kind of uber-tanks guarranteed to kill a Sherman, especially not at longer rangers. Neither were Sherman as weakly armored as a common myth seems to indicate...
-
Hello everyone , I would like to bring up the topic of the sherman. Over the past few days ive been doing nothing but gv'n with friends on the game. And it has come to my attention that the shermans armor is very over modeled. The round of a panzer should be able to 1 hit a sherman every time no questions asked. Yet it takes 2 to 3 rounds to kill him , if your first shots aren't ricocheted. Normally I wouldn't bother posting this but since the new patch is coming out very soon , I thought id mention it and hope Hitech Creations fix the sherman.
See you on the battle fields Rondar. :rock
This statement illustrates just how strong the misconceptions about armor are on the "stock" sherman.
The M4 had some significant shortcomings however it also had some strengths. The stock gun tube was a was a low velocity 75mm. This came about due to two converging issues. 1st the artillery service had a lot of sway over procurement and the original high velocity tube had a short life span so it wanted a longer life lower velocity tube. 2nd US doctrine envisioned a fluid battlefield where specific anti tank (Tank Destroyer) units engaged enemy armor while US tanks acted primarily in a infantry support role...hence the pitiful 75mm.
This created some significant issues in tactics, forcing the M4's to almost suicidal point blank range in tank on tank engagements. The design also suffered from a high profile compared to other tanks.
However...
The Sherman had a 46 degree slope on its frontal armor, this is almost optimal and predated the panthers sloped armor. It also had a cast turret with both curved armor and a large thick gun mantlet. This made the M4 very tough to kill at range in a frontal encounter from longer ranges. While more vulnerablr from the sides and rear taken "head on" the sherman is close to the T-34 in toughness.
-
We have a Sherman VC Firefly, not the Sherman M4. The one we have has better armor and a MUCH better gun. (British 17 pounder) It can take rounds from a Panzer IV.
Actually the firefly is a conversion of about 5-6 different variations of M4 but most were converted early models, the turret is modified but the chassis is "stock".
-
We have a Sherman VC Firefly, not the Sherman M4. The one we have has better armor and a MUCH better gun. (British 17 pounder) It can take rounds from a Panzer IV.
Thats not true at all. if you dont believe me heres the proof. The firefly was exact same armor and tank as the american m4.
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/usa/fm4.htm)
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/data/firefly.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/uk/data/firefly.htm)
-
The poster seems to confuse the Panzer IV with a Tiger.
Panzer IV's weren't that kind of uber-tanks guarranteed to kill a Sherman, especially not at longer rangers. Neither were Sherman as weakly armored as a common myth seems to indicate...
Panzers gun was plenty strong to kill a sherman at range. When the first sherman came out , the american model , it was destroyed by the panzer and the tiger. The firefly could now kill the panzer with the new high volocity round tho. And im talking point blank here , it ricocheds off them or they abosrb it. If you jump in a gv more often instad of flying a temp you would understand a little more on the subject ;)
-
The poster seems to confuse the Panzer IV with a Tiger.
Panzer IV's weren't that kind of uber-tanks guarranteed to kill a Sherman, especially not at longer rangers. Neither were Sherman as weakly armored as a common myth seems to indicate...
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm)
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
Theres some more info on it right there. While were on this topic , there shermans round should not be able to 1 hit a tiger at 2800 yards. I have been ranging at 2800 yards in blue arena on a hill at the 88 North spawn. And shermans pop me first hit almost all time time. If im lucky they will smoke me. shermans gun is garbage at long range compared to the tiger and the panzer.
-
Panzers gun was plenty strong to kill a sherman at range. When the first sherman came out , the american model , it was destroyed by the panzer and the tiger. The firefly could now kill the panzer with the new high volocity round tho. And im talking point blank here , it ricocheds off them or they abosrb it.
The Firefly is an extremely easy kill at close range in the Panzer IV, provided you shoot first.
-
wahhhhh i didnt kill a sherman with 1 shot and he killed me with 1 shot
-
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm)
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
These links do not contradict my post :)
-
The Firefly is an extremely easy kill at close range in the Panzer IV, provided you shoot first.
Thats what im saying , a tiger round and a panzer round doesn't ricochet off a sherman at know 1,000 yards , or absorb it like they normally do. Ask anyone that GVs and they will say the same thing. There armor is over modeled. The reason the tank was able to defeat the german tanks was because there was alot of them. It was easier to mass produce. If you look at the stats on the tiger , you will see that it is the mac daddy of tanks. 100MM armor all around , but still get iced by panzers.
-
These links do not contradict my post :)
I guess I didnt understand it then :uhoh
-
****NEWS FLASH****
Noob gets spanked...claims faulty modeling.
Yup never seen that before. :rolleyes:
-
Thats what im saying ,
You're saying that the Sherman is an easy kill? Then what are you complaining about?
I VERY rarely have a Sherman survive the first shot. My longest kill ever was 3 shots against a Sherman... he was so far away I was at risk of losing him in the bottom of the gunsight, well below the rangefinder. With a Panzer IV.
-
You're saying that the Sherman is an easy kill? Then what are you complaining about?
I VERY rarely have a Sherman survive the first shot. My longest kill ever was 3 shots against a Sherman... he was so far away I was at risk of losing him in the bottom of the gunsight, well below the rangefinder.
Im saying the oposite , for me it takes numerous shots to kill them.
-
May want to work on your aim then.
-
Panzer can kill a Sherman very easily...Just gotta hit it in the right spots.
-
Maybe it's just your aiming?
-
Maybe it's just your aiming?
I aim fine , can range at 3200 yards in 2 shots , its the shermans!
-
I aim fine , can range at 3200 yards in 2 shots , its the shermans!
Where you hit matters as much as simply hitting does.
-
And shermans pop me first hit almost all time time. If im lucky they will smoke me. shermans gun is garbage at long range compared to the tiger and the panzer.
As has been said, we have the 17 pounder gun, a lot more powerful than the 75mm. Im not big on GV's, but surely this will makea bit differance, explaining why you get popped on the first shot. Its a big gun
-
As has been said, we have the 17 pounder gun, a lot more powerful than the 75mm. Im not big on GV's, but surely this will makea bit differance, explaining why you get popped on the first shot. Its a big gun
Well , before you jump into a subject you have no idea about , take a little time to actually read the topic , I know ... it hurts but try. The topic is Panzers not being able to kill a sherman in 1 shot. It taks 2 to 3 shots , if you dont get a ricochet. Never doubted anything about the fireflys capability to kill another tank , thats given. Click on the links in the first page for specs
-
nvm
-
I was simply replying to what you said about getting popped every time with one shot from a sherman. Thats how I read your post anyway, if not could you possibly take the bother to rephrase it. I have already admitted that I dont know anything about GV's, so no need to get narky at me
-
no need to get narky at me
Is that a word??? :huh
-
It doesnt matter what range you are shooting at, you can get a ricoche at 3200 or at 10ft away depending on where your round hits.
"My longest kill ever was 3 shots against a Sherman" Find that very interesting, you must not fight sherman's much?
-
The furthest away I've killed a tank, I should've said.
-
On a given day I have taken out Shermans with 1 shot from a Panzer plenty of times. Then some times it takes more. Of late I have been having issues with tiger rounds not killing other gv's from very close Like m3's with the rounds bouncing off of them. Just have to take the good with the bad.
-
Is that a word??? :huh
It is, it means grumpy.
-
"And it has come to my attention that the shermans armor is very over modeled."
What's your data?
The Sherman was a tank, not a truck.
Regards.
-
Bah!! ....my Tiger dies w/ one shot from a Panzer IV ....so I dont even bother w/ Tigers anymore.
Helm ...out
-
And it has come to my attention that the shermans armor is very over modeled. The round of a panzer should be able to 1 hit a sherman every time no questions asked.
So it's "very over modeled" because you believe that just 1 shot from a Panzer should kill the Firefly.
It doesn't matter the distance, angle of the shot, or where the shot hits the tank/armor ... 1 shot should kill it "no questions asked" ... nice try.
-
I have shot a m3 with a Sherman three times (ricochet) before a kill and have been killed by a panzer with one shot. It matters not how much but where you shoot :aok
-
While we're dropping anecdotes, a few days ago I hit an LVT with a Tiger from about 200 yards, four times, and then someone else hit it and blew it up (I got the kill of course). It happens.
To the OP: rounds lose energy the further out they go. A 1000 yard shot is actually pretty far out there (it's over half a mile) and yet we often have tankers duking at out at 1600-2000 yards and further (well over a mile away). You can't expect that a tank round is going to have as much energy at over a mile away from the gun that shot it as it has in the first 200-400 yards or so. It simply doesn't work that way. It's called physics.
This is why Shermans do indeed get knocked out in 1 shot by Panzers, with reasonable hits, in the 0-400 yard range, and usually all the way out to 800 or so, but at 1200-1600 yards it simply doesn't happen a lot, and it often takes 2, 3, even 4 hits in the frontal armor to defeat that Sherman. This is no mystery.
-
Fireflys must be good!!?Paraguays top tank is a Sherman Firefly!!lol
-
The shermans final drive is placed in the front portion of the vehicle, and has a rounded shape, yet i have hit low on that front armor and watched rounds bounce...this seems unlikly, the same goes for the turret, round is a shape particularly bad for deflecting rounds as there is always a flat surface facing the incoming round.
And as for the firefly being up armored, accept for a couple patches over the ammunition boxes on the sides ( building of armored boxes on on the inside of the sponson's to gaurd against fire and fragments) and a small patch infront and to the sides of the driver, I dont find any proof that the whole machine was thicknd.
My point is this, every book I ever read had the Americans putting railroad sleepers,sandbags,logs,dead bodies etc. on the front to try and provide some protection, this isnt because they where exclusivly afraid of panthers and tigers..., heck I cant find a picture of anything bigger than 37mm bouncing OFF a sherman, but ill keep looking.
I've always thought this tank had a bit to much going for it, mabey the addition of some anti tank guns would put the ronsen liter back in its proper perspective...
-
Ive got to retract the above statment, after a bit of reading it seems the MkIV was giving the sherman no headaches in the frontal armor game, unless the range was pretty close...
but I also see where the extra armor added to the panzer was pretty good at taking some of the zing out of a round fired from either the sides or rear, but mostly to keep shape charge rounds off the main hull.
I still believe owing to the lack of several anti armor weapons it would have actualy faced, the Sherman is too effective in here.
Just dont have the ammo I thought I did concerning its combat with the MKIV panzer...
-
thing that made me mad.. was 1 on 1 with an enemy sherman, i was in a Tiger... i shoot sherman right in turret.. nothing happens... he shoots me 1 time... BOOM im dead...
-BigBOBCH
-
The poster seems to confuse the Panzer IV with a Tiger.
Panzer IV's weren't that kind of uber-tanks guarranteed to kill a Sherman, especially not at longer rangers. Neither were Sherman as weakly armored as a common myth seems to indicate...
Tell that to the Americans who served in North Africa or in the ETO, numbers on paper are easy to snipe from the sidelines with. I've talked to a few that served in the ETO and they agree "The Panzer 4's were bad enough to face, the Tiger's were their worst nightmare."
My grandfather (USMC PTO - 43-46) worked with a fellow who was in 3rd AD. In France he recalled of a story that puts one in the driver's seat, per se. He often stated: "The Sherman was a joke."
Here's one of his encounters while in a Sherman:
"One day we're East of Paris and we get a call over the radio that two Tigers have stalled the line. I move forward and had time to count 76 burned out Shermans. I order the driver to proceed cautiously and we immediately get hit. We jumped out and watched our Sherman go up with a second round fired at it. I hop into another tank and we try and get it reversed in enough time to try and flank their position. Nope, by the time the Sherman rolled backwards, another hit. We jump out and I commandeer another Sherman to try again. Nope. Yet another round hit the track of this Sherman destroying the Main Drive Sprocket on top of it. We again hop out and now move rearward on our line and I order the remainder of my unit to flank the two Tigers' positions. We were surprised when the crews exited as they had exhausted their ammo. He was able to talk to one of the crews while waiting for someone to escort them rearward as POW's." He said "They displayed more class and honor than we were expecting, from the amount of carnage they caused. The gunner in the Tiger on the South position had graduated from Harvard."
He said he personally lost two more Shermans that day alone. All of that carnage caused by a mere two Tigers hunkered in depressions. Now, before folks say "Karaya we're talking about Panzer 4's here, not Tigers." The true story above is to not only enforce the "Myth" but make it Iron Clad. They were called "Ronson Lighters" for a reason, because their armor sucked. They (M4's were "adequate" (and this is stretching it) for all mark Panzers up until the 75mm KwK 40 L/48 IV's.
75mm KwK 40 L/48 laden IV's destroy the M4 even at "long range". The armor sucked. If you need another memory jog, crack open a book on how fragile the US Armored elements fared against Panzer III's, IV's (non 75mm KwK 40 L/48 on top of it) and Tigers. They were on their last thread when the 8th Army broke the Eastern front of NA.
-
We have a Sherman VC Firefly, not the Sherman M4. The one we have has better armor and a MUCH better gun. (British 17 pounder) It can take rounds from a Panzer IV.
The VC is an M4A4 fitted with the 17-pounder, even so, it is still an M4.
-
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/tiger1.htm)
http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm (http://www.onwar.com/tanks/germany/data/pz4h.htm)
Theres some more info on it right there. While were on this topic , there shermans round should not be able to 1 hit a tiger at 2800 yards. I have been ranging at 2800 yards in blue arena on a hill at the 88 North spawn. And shermans pop me first hit almost all time time. If im lucky they will smoke me. shermans gun is garbage at long range compared to the tiger and the panzer.
The 17pound gun on the Firefly was not garbage at long range.
ack-ack
-
The VC is an M4A4 fitted with the 17-pounder, even so, it is still an M4.
my bad then, I though the Firefly was a bit of a different design.
-
i dont know what to make of the firefly vs tiger deal now...
earlier today, was exchanging rounds with an m4, i'm in tiger.. at about 2000 yds, I bounced 2 directly off his turret (they actually richochet back my direction), but suprisingly, he bounced like 4 or 5 off me! and then somehow i finally got a good hit and he dies... :rolleyes:
the next m4 a minute later at about 1600 turreted me in 1 shot tho :D
-
Bah!! ....my Tiger dies w/ one shot from a Panzer IV ....so I dont even bother w/ Tigers anymore.
Helm ...out
Tigers die with one shot from Panzers at short range. At longer ranges, like 1000-1600 yards and further, one-shot kills against Tigers with the Panzer would be the exception, not the rule.
It's not the Panzer's improved effectiveness against the Tiger that has led to the decline of the Tiger. It's the Sherman Firefly that did it.
I can one-shot kill a Tiger in a T34. I just have to get like 50-100 yards away from it and shoot it directly into the side armor. That doesn't mean the Tiger sucks against T34s. The Tiger still dominates Panzers, especially if you can keep the Panzers from getting inside 800 yards or so.
Remember when it was almost impossible to kill Tigers with the Panzer, no matter how close you were, and there was no Sherman? Now that was silly stupid.
-
Interesting pictures here,
http://www.zhe.hu/Barangolas/Hollandia/Overloon%20Muzeum/overloon%20muzeum1.html
http://www.pbase.com/kees_s/overloon
This is a Sherman at the Overloon War Museum in Holland. I was there a few years back, what the pictures don't show is that this Sherman took 3 hits from an 88mm at around 1000 yards.
The turret was moved out of place by a round that wedged between the turret and the body, there were also 2 further hits that entered from the lower side (between the tracks) and also exited out of the opposite side.
Doesn't prove anything either way, just interesting photos.
wipass
-
Excerpt from: http://yarchive.net/mil/ww2_tank_armor.html
"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."
http://www.tqnyc.org/NYC073871/Comparisons_of_tanks.htm
This site pretty much shows the weight/armour difference between Pz4 and T-34(and M4 if you like). T34 is 10 tons heavier and has actually a bit worse armour in terms of resisting penetration although commonly considered superior to Pz4. Pz4 does not have as effective sloping, though, which probably would make a difference in close quarters fight. In longer ranges the sloping starts to lose its effectiveness since the hits start to have more angle but it still is the most optimal layout.
Face hardened plate has a better chance of deflecting the AP penetrator away or making it shatter on impact where as the softer cast armour lets the penetrator bite into the surface and start delivering its energy to armour. Rounding of the corners is certainly a good feature (although softness of metal eats some of that away)as are the lack of welds in the corners in cast armour and of course it is fast and cheap to produce.
Some more info: http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm#panzer4
I tend to agree that M4 was still just an M4 although now it had a decent gun and it could defend itself also in head-on engagements.
It is up to you to consider if M4's armour (and T-34's) are a bit "overdone"... ;)
-C+
-
I'd like some feedback from the armor/weapon gurus. This isn't a whine, I'm just posing a question regarding weapon penetration, armor thickness, etc. for a given scenario.
Last night a Bish came out with an M4 and I was in a T34. I got a side turret hit on him with an HVAP round at around 30 yards range and I got the hit sprite and then nothing happened. Didn't pop the turret, kill him, or anything else. He turned and killed me. This happened two more times, with me getting extreme close-range hits on the side or front quarter (not directly into gun mantlet) of his Sherman turret using HVAP rounds from my T34/76 gun, and nothing happening.
Do you guys think this is reasonable? Does anything think perhaps this Sherman turret is a bit overmodeled? Or is it just bad luck my three HVAP rounds from point-blank range were absorbed by this turret?
Ironically, if I'd fired at his side armor he'd probably have died, but he took those turret hits like a man and killed me each time.
-
I'd like some feedback from the armor/weapon gurus. This isn't a whine, I'm just posing a question regarding weapon penetration, armor thickness, etc. for a given scenario.
Last night a Bish came out with an M4 and I was in a T34. I got a side turret hit on him with an HVAP round at around 30 yards range and I got the hit sprite and then nothing happened. Didn't pop the turret, kill him, or anything else. He turned and killed me. This happened two more times, with me getting extreme close-range hits on the side or front quarter (not directly into gun mantlet) of his Sherman turret using HVAP rounds from my T34/76 gun, and nothing happening.
Do you guys think this is reasonable? Does anything think perhaps this Sherman turret is a bit overmodeled? Or is it just bad luck my three HVAP rounds from point-blank range were absorbed by this turret?
Ironically, if I'd fired at his side armor he'd probably have died, but he took those turret hits like a man and killed me each time.
I dont recall if HVAP is better at short ranges or longer ranges. It's less effective then a normal AP round under certain circumstances. No question the damage modeling for AFV's is not right. Overall however the sherman was not "under armored" it was under gunned compared to the PzIV. Shooting a sherman in the turret is the worst thing you can do, its turret is much more survivable then its hull side facing. At point blank range this is poor judgement on your part....also realize that not only is the turret rounded, but you were actually shooting up from close range to hit it adding deflection/slope and allowing the round to deflect up.
-
The poster seems to confuse the Panzer IV with a Tiger.
Panzer IV's weren't that kind of uber-tanks guarranteed to kill a Sherman, especially not at longer rangers. Neither were Sherman as weakly armored as a common myth seems to indicate...
I hate to disagree Lusche, but there was an episode of Enginering Disasters on the History Channel about the Sherman. One unit lost 12 out of 14 crews within a day due to the thin armor, gasoline powerplant and small bore main gun. The Army had decided that speed was the primary attribute for the Army's new MBT and chose the sherman for it's speed rather than for firepower and survivability. The M4 was no match for a Tiger. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the change made on the VC firefly that made it such an "uber" tank when compared to the Pzkw IV (as we have it modeled in AH).
-
I dont recall if HVAP is better at short ranges or longer ranges. It's less effective then a normal AP round under certain circumstances. No question the damage modeling for AFV's is not right. Overall however the sherman was not "under armored" it was under gunned compared to the PzIV. Shooting a sherman in the turret is the worst thing you can do, its turret is much more survivable then its hull side facing. At point blank range this is poor judgement on your part....also realize that not only is the turret rounded, but you were actually shooting up from close range to hit it adding deflection/slope and allowing the round to deflect up.
Actually I had little choice regarding shooting his turret. These shots involved a Sherman passing by and becoming visible over a low hill, and his turret showed up first and getting a hull shot would have been difficult or impossible, or given him a chance to get the first shot at me. Granted, when I hit the side of his turret I could have waited a few seconds since he had to turn his turret to shoot me, and that would have given his hull a chance to expose itself as he passed the end of that little terrain. I chose to shoot under the (possibly mistaken) assumption that a side turret hit would be easier to penetrate than a front turret hit if he stop and started turning his turret toward me.
-
I dont recall if HVAP is better at short ranges or longer ranges.
Shorter ranges. It sacrifices weight for muzzle velocity, so although faster and better penetrating at short ranges, it decelerates more quickly than a heavier AP round.
That being said, the HVAP round in my experience does not seem to have much additional punch vs. standard AP in AH. Could easily be just my perception. YMMV.
-
I hate to disagree Lusche, but there was an episode of Enginering Disasters on the History Channel about the Sherman. One unit lost 12 out of 14 crews within a day due to the thin armor, gasoline powerplant and small bore main gun. The Army had decided that speed was the primary attribute for the Army's new MBT and chose the sherman for it's speed rather than for firepower and survivability. The M4 was no match for a Tiger. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the change made on the VC firefly that made it such an "uber" tank when compared to the Pzkw IV (as we have it modeled in AH).
Your first problem is that you are relying on the History Channel, which dutifully repeats popular myth rather than dig for the truth in many if not most cases.
Lost 12 of 14 crews? Plenty of tanks did that at some point or another.
Lose them to machine gun fire, you have an argument. Lose them against emplaced 88s? Tigers? Panthers? Insufficient data, therefore a statistic without a point.
Thin armor? Compared to what? Certainly thinner than the Tiger (a heavy tank vs. the medium Sherman), but not as paper thin as popular myth would have you believe.
Gasoline power plant is a problem? What do you think the PzkwIV and Tiger ran on? Why is it gasoline a problem only for the Sherman and not any of the other gasoline-powered tanks?
75mm is "small bore?" :lol
The Sherman, a tank designed to be an infantry support system, weighing in at 30 tons, was "no match" for the Tiger, a tank designed to be a tank-killer, weiging in at 55 tons. Well DUH. Here is a hint for you -- the Sherman was no match for the Tiger, but neither was the Pzkw IV, nor the T-34, yet no one would argue either of those tanks were failures.
What makes the Firefly superior to the Pzkw IV in this game? The gun, silly! Isn't it obvious? The 17lbr gun was one of the most effective AT weapons developed in the war, and it pwns in AH. As it should.
-
Firefly 17lber OQF MkIV (believe this is the gun we have in the 5C) Gun data.
APCBC (Armour Piercing Cap Ballistic Cap)
Muzzle Velocity: 2,900 Ft/Sec
Penetraion at 0 deg.
500m: 172mm
1000m: 162mm
1500m: 150mm
Pen. @ 30 deg.
500m: 136mm
1000m: 128mm
1500m: 119mm
2000m: 107mm (so no mantle penetration but everywhere else stands a good chance of full penetration)
so its safe to say at 2500m the 17lber will still penetrate your tigers frontal upper hull armour since it was only 100mm and the turret mantlet was only 110mm @ 0 deg. Either way I believe the firefly we are usuing has APCBC ammo (then again it only says "AP") so if its solid core AP round it will have less penetration then the APCBC. Just be thankful we dont have APDS (@ 1500m it penetrates 213mm @ 0 deg.) cause the tiger will be easily beat out to 3000m (give or take) as for the Firefly VC's Armour it was only 50.8mm @ 46 deg. front upper hull, turret was 76.2mm and mantlet was 88.9mm so the tiger should have no problem penetrating up to 2000m (but NOT the turret mentlet)
88mm KwK 36 L/56(? not sure about 56 sounds right)
Pzgr 39 APCBC (most likely the ammo we use in tiger in game)
Muzzle Velocity: 2,657 Ft/Sec
Penetration at 30 deg.
500m: 108mm
1000m: 100mm
1500m: 94mm (Technically a dead Firefly below this range)
2000m: 83mm (NO chance of a mantlet penetration but rest of turret no problem)
@ 90 deg.
500m: 130mm
1000m: 119mm
1500m: 109mm
2000m: 99mm
2500m: 90mm
so all in all the Firefly VC can penetrate the Tiger I at most normal ranges in the MA and vice versa so on paper they are both a pretty equal match in penetration but NOT in armour. So technically the 1st to shoot will win (in theroie) but we all know that things such as shot placement, packet loss, or just bad luck can effect the IN GAME values of armour. Then again this is a game so dont be suprised if the penetrations are off a bit or a lot. Only reason they were called ronsons were early M4s caught fire without a full penetration hit, all that was required was shell spalling to ignite the cordite or fuel and BOOM shes a flamer, Tiger atleast had a lot of armour against standard M4s so it was less common unless they threw a round from dead 6 into the exhaust (PzIV i can see flaming much easier for obvious reasons), as for the the side skirts of the PzIV they were NOT meant to defeat hollow charge only ATR's to deform or deflect the rifles projectile. Anyway if im wrong about anything im sure someone will correct it but one thing that does bug me is how that myth about the skirts defeating hollow charge. The US and UK just assumed it was for that purpose and didnt think hard enough to figure out the most numerious threat to the panzers in russia were ATRs. They have amazing penetration values for such a small round (think it was 14.2mm) and if that guy held his ground under cover and let that Pz roll by hes got a good chance at a side/rear shot to disable the tank or kill crew members.
-
Firefly 17lber OQF MkIV (believe this is the gun we have in the 5C) Gun data.
APCBC (Armour Piercing Cap Ballistic Cap)
Muzzle Velocity: 2,900 Ft/Sec
...
Me thinks you about 1,000+ FPS too slow.
-
Not for APCBC. APDS was 3,950 feet per second which we dont have but I could be wrong about our load outs. Since its the morning ill quote wiki here.
In about September 1944, the British started to use APDS shot for the 17-pdr, which travelling at over 1,200 metres per second increased the armour penetrating power of the 17-pdr greatly with a penetration of 192 mm armour over 1,000 yards (910 m). The disadvantages of APDS as compared with the 17-pdr's regular APCBC ammunition was that it was much less accurate and did not do nearly as much damage to an enemy tank if it did penetrate. APDS shot remained rare accounting for only about 6% of the average loadout of a 17-pdr equipped British tank.
So yes for Armour Piercing Discaring Sabo then Ill agree its around 3000ft/sec but it was a rare commodity so most likely youll see APCBC so the FPS should be right.
-
heck of a post thenewB :salute saw the same show (issue) it mentioned the aircract motor for the shermans and it higher octain needs=more voilatle nature. I think it good to have tanks that can bust tigers I'm :pray for the comet
-
August 8, 1944 Trooper Joe Elkins, gunner on a Sherman Firefly, with 6 shots, kills 4 Tiger Is including the Tiger I of Tiger Ace Michael Wittmann. The Tigers got off three shots at the Firefly, 2 missing and the third hitting the commander's hatch. The fight took less then an hour.
The 17 pounder was more then a match for Tiger Is armor. Elkin's "Brewed" Wittmann's Tiger with one shot
-
:salute haasehole. Actually I didnt watch that programe, what is it called anyway? (dont have military channel unfortunately, but then again id be glued to the TV to much so maybe its a blessing i dont have it ;) ) I would love a Comet but Id love to see my all time fav tank (rather Tank Destroyer) in game 1st.... the small but potent Hetzer :aok
Edit 1st post: The russian ATR was actually 14.5mm not 14.2mm (not sure where i got the 2 from)
-
One unit lost 12 out of 14 crews within a day due to the thin armor, gasoline powerplant and small bore main gun.
The common held belief that gasoline engines were a major cause of the Sherman tank destruction is unsupported; most WW2 tanks used gasoline engines and the gasoline was unlikely to ignite when hit by AP rounds. US Army research and testing showed that the main culprit was ammunition fire from the use of unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. A partial remedy to ammunition fire was found by welding one-inch thick applique armour plates to the vertical sponson sides over the ammunition stowage bins. Later models moved ammunition stowage to the hull floor, with additional water jackets surrounding the main gun ammunition stowage. This decreased the likelihood of "brewing up".
ack-ack