Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dirt911 on April 10, 2009, 10:28:17 PM
-
its become ridiculous the tiger doesnt deserve the amount of perks it cost so far very raerley a tiger lands a kill its always leave with a tiger die with a tiger death for 30+ perks its stupid i say the frigging perks be lowered too what 1,2,3 its not worth what it costs the t34/85 is better and cost 3 perks tiger sucks compared to anything else so why perked so high its a joke
-
Agreed that the perk range between the Tiger & the Firefly & T34/85 needs to be narrowed. Or just do what I do most of the time never use perk rides that much. Then you will end up with over 16k in gv points so when you do loose a perk ride no big deal.
-
Tiger perks are fine, Firefly is much too cheap, T-34/85 is fine.
-
Firefly price needs to go up, and we still need our standard, lousy, hangar-queen, Ronson-lighter Sherman. :D
Is the T-34/85 still getting turreted easier than any other tank in the game, including a T-35/76? Until that is fixed, it is not worth a single perk.
-
Tiger perks are fine, Firefly is much too cheap, T-34/85 is fine.
Perfectly, and succinctly stated. +1
-
Every other week or so this comes up again. The tiger is perked the way it is because of the way it can take ANYTHING down faster then ANYTHING. Yes if you die in a tiger it sucks but it could also be your fault for the way you are using it or for allowing yourself to be flanked. Yes a tiger can be killed in one shot as can any tank. I love the tiger and I have no problem with the perk system the way it is. I even ditch tigers from time to time. I lost 55 perks just today for ditching one. No big deal really.
I do think the sherman should cost a little more because of the way the gun can be elevated which can be very helpful in the arena.
-
tiger sucks did any of you watch the video plus ive been killed by one 75 mm round in tiger the 76 mm and 85 77mm were built to counter tiger 75 couldnt kill tiger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZ34lVcYAA
-
tiger sucks did any of you watch the video plus ive been killed by one 75 mm round in tiger the 76 mm and 85 77mm were built to counter tiger 75 couldnt kill tiger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZ34lVcYAA
You have a grossly over simplistic view of the effectiveness of tank weapons.
-
You have a grossly over simplistic view of the effectiveness of tank weapons.
+2
-
oh sure its me why dont you have some of your family in the tank division with basic sherman ww2 then come back and tell me
-
oh sure its me why dont you have some of your family in the tank division with basic sherman ww2 then come back and tell me
waaa? :huh
-
Realise you will probably get more perks running field supplies in an M-3 than you'll ever get for landing kills in a Tiger.
wrongway
-
Realise you will probably get more perks running field supplies in an M-3 than you'll ever get for landing kills in a Tiger.
wrongway
Roll a wirble or osti onto the end of your runway while the field is being vulched.
-
Interesting site about Tiger: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
-C+
-
yeah but you have too look at armour and gun pershing tigers armour was nearly 4 inches thick making it a hard too kill tank but in ah sometimes single 75mm rounds persh all of the armour
-
yeah but you have too look at armour and gun pershing tigers armour was nearly 4 inches thick making it a hard too kill tank but in ah sometimes single 75mm rounds persh all of the armour
engrish?
wrongway
-
oh sure its me why dont you have some of your family in the tank division with basic sherman ww2 then come back and tell me
Having family who use the M4 Sherman does not convey any particular knowelge about the subject to you, as you demonstrated earlier.
The 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun on the Panther tanks could penetrate 150mm of armor at 1000 meters, that is significantly better performance than the US 76mm cannon on the M4E8 Sherman or the Russian 85mm cannon on the T-38/85 or the German 88mm cannon on the Tiger I, the 88mm cannon on the Tiger II was superior however. In AH the 75mm gun on the Panzer IV H out performs the 76mm gun on the T-34/76 by a very large margin, as it should and the 76mm 17lber on the Sherman Firefly out performs the 88mm gun on the Tiger I, which is also correct.
Diameter of the bore does play a part, but it is only a part and does not tell us anything approaching all the information about a given gun's performance.
-
Optics that reflect historical disparity could make the tiger worth its current price.
-
tiger sucks did any of you watch the video plus ive been killed by one 75 mm round in tiger the 76 mm and 85 77mm were built to counter tiger 75 couldnt kill tiger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZ34lVcYAA
I'm hardly a paragon of virtue when it comes to the English language, but capitalisation, punctuation and basic grammar and knowledge of sentence/paragraph may help your argument.
To translate:
"Tiger sucks.
Did any of you watch the video?
Plus, I've been killed by one 75 mm round in Tiger. The 76 mm, 85 mm and 77mm were built to counter the Tiger. I believe the 75 mm couldn't kill the Tiger"
Now that we can understand your argument, we can break it down.
Yes, the 75 mm mounted on the Sherman (as well as several British tanks of the period) was inadequate against the Tiger tank. However, inadequate does not mean completely ineffective.
While there was very little chance of any penetration by the 75 mm frontally, side and rear hits, particularly on the lower hull, could (and did) result in penetrations.
So, the Tiger was not invulnerable to the 75 mm, just highly resistant to it.
Secondly, your belief that the various larger caliber tank cannon were designed to defeat the Tiger is incorrect, at least in the case of the British and the Russians.
The British 17 lbr (which shouldn't be confused with the 77 mm, which is a different weapon) was developed out of a 1940 requirement for a gun to replace the 6 lbr (which was just beginning deployment at the time). Production began in April 1942, well before the Tiger appeared on the battlefield.
The Russian 85 mm tank gun was developed from an existing 85 mm anti aircraft gun, which had been in Soviet service since 1939. Its incorporation into tanks was under consideration in early 1942, but production priorities and the complete dislocation of Soviet military production meant that the 76.2 mm was retained as the primary tank gun until late 1943/early 1944.
-
Optics that reflect historical disparity could make the tiger worth its current price.
You're just asking for more buttons to push. AH customers do not want historically accurate sights and instrumentation. :devil
-
Not when we can do without em and/or they detract from the fight.... That's always been the crux of my argument on it. Those buttons to push in the GVs wouldn't be adding to much. As it is the GVs are just toys compared to the planes. No trim, no stalling, 2D battleground etc.
-
You're just asking for more buttons to push. AH customers do not want historically accurate sights and instrumentation. :devil
Only the ones that think AH should have super l33t plane upgrades to make your plane faster or turn tighter.
-
but think about it tiger was built in a time where no other tank could kill it tiger was built too sweep all before it and keep on. eventually allied designers and tank crews became so desparete that, they were using ground troops too capture these things.
after capturing these tanks and many tests on 102mm armour only one allied gun could penetrare all the way through the armour,The QF 17 pounder a british gun but the british had no tanks at the time too mount it on.
So the american designers after studying the power too weight ratio of the sherman and weight of the gun mounted it on a sherman naming it the firefly this tank was excellent proving effective against tiger 1 although it still faced one problem sherman couldnt with stand an 88mm hit many crews of the day were not trained to deal with a tiger meaning still,even though the right gun was there the tank was there and all
it still could sweep all before it.
THE END
-
but think about it tiger was built in a time where no other tank could kill it tiger was built too sweep all before it and keep on. eventually allied designers and tank crews became so desparete that, they were using ground troops too capture these things.
after capturing these tanks and many tests on 102mm armour only one allied gun could penetrare all the way through the armour,The QF 17 pounder a british gun but the british had no tanks at the time too mount it on.
So the american designers after studying the power too weight ratio of the sherman and weight of the gun mounted it on a sherman naming it the firefly this tank was excellent proving effective against tiger 1 although it still faced one problem sherman couldnt with stand an 88mm hit many crews of the day were not trained to deal with a tiger meaning still,even though the right gun was there the tank was there and all
it still could sweep all before it.
THE END
Uhhhh..... No.
wrongway
-
It was a nice story though, but I have to concur with Rightway (who is never wrong :D )
-
hey that took 6 hours too think over and post
-
Dirt911 what country are you from?
-
Firefly price needs to go up, and we still need our standard, lousy, hangar-queen, Ronson-lighter Sherman. :D
Is the T-34/85 still getting turreted easier than any other tank in the game, including a T-35/76? Until that is fixed, it is not worth a single perk.
Agreed!
I had an M8 turret me while in a T-34/85. This M8 can up behind me and by the time I got the barrel swung around my turret was out. No way on God's green earth that should ever happen no matter how many shots he takes.
-
Im from the U.S
-
Agreed!
I had an M8 turret me while in a T-34/85. This M8 can up behind me and by the time I got the barrel swung around my turret was out. No way on God's green earth that should ever happen no matter how many shots he takes.
What makes you say that?
-
Im from the U.S
D00D3 so am I
-
It's a small world after all :)
-
What makes you say that?
Why because driving a T-34/76 onto a enemy field or town with all the field ack shooting at you doesn't kill you or your turret as quickly as a lone M8 shooting 1 37mm round at a time at a T-34/85. No way 5 hits from a 37mm should be able to do that. That's why .
-
Optics that reflect historical disparity could make the tiger worth its current price.
:lol have you ever seen what the optics or rather what a German gunner would have seen through the typical German gunsight? It is quite intimadating to say the least. It's much different then what we see in this game and has many more gun solution configurations to view that would only confuse 98% of the folks that GV.
-
German Tiger gunners could land the first shot near the target, with no need to bracket as widely like most players do.
It's much different then what we see in this game and has many more gun solution configurations to view that would only confuse 98% of the folks that GV.
Have you ever seen what a newbie flies like in his first day of AH? Or a year later once he's learned the ropes?
-
Why because driving a T-34/76 onto a enemy field or town with all the field ack shooting at you doesn't kill you or your turret as quickly as a lone M8 shooting 1 37mm round at a time at a T-34/85. No way 5 hits from a 37mm should be able to do that. That's why .
AT shells vs AA shells?
-
Why because driving a T-34/76 onto a enemy field or town with all the field ack shooting at you doesn't kill you or your turret as quickly as a lone M8 shooting 1 37mm round at a time at a T-34/85. No way 5 hits from a 37mm should be able to do that. That's why .
While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern section had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from "E" Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the MLR. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their puny 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s "Achilles heel" (its thin rear armor), and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their "88" to bear … Suddenly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in 3 rounds… the lumbering Tiger stopped, shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position.
-
Why because driving a T-34/76 onto a enemy field or town with all the field ack shooting at you doesn't kill you or your turret as quickly as a lone M8 shooting 1 37mm round at a time at a T-34/85. No way 5 hits from a 37mm should be able to do that. That's why .
You do realize that enemy field and town ack is firing HE, not AP, right?
And what Lye-El said -- saved me from looking it up.
-
While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern section had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from "E" Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the MLR. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their puny 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s "Achilles heel" (its thin rear armor), and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their "88" to bear … Suddenly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in 3 rounds… the lumbering Tiger stopped, shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position.
lol that is pure propaganda. Maybe the Tiger had it's engine disabled at best but no amount of 37MM ap could or ever did penetrated a Tiger's hull or turret. Also for the other comment about T-34's and ack compared to a M8 firing ap 37mm. I think 5 37mm acks hitting a tank at the same time would do more damage then 3 ap rounds from a M8. People need to read a few books rather then fictitious stories about M8's killing Tiger tanks.
As you can see by the chart below the Tigers rear hull was not "thinly armored" as you state
Armor Nominal Thickness Brinell Hardness No.
Turret Roof 25 mm 290
Hull Roof 25 mm 335
Glacis 60 mm 265
Hull Sides 60 mm 265
Turret Sides 80 mm 255
Superstructure 80 mm 260-255
Hull Rear 80 mm 255
Driver's Front Plate 100 mm 265
Hull Front 100 mm 265
Mantlet 100-200 mm 280
-
German Tiger gunners could land the first shot near the target, with no need to bracket as widely like most players do.Have you ever seen what a newbie flies like in his first day of AH? Or a year later once he's learned the ropes?
That comparing apples with oranges. We don't have the German gunsight in this game so your below statement has no bearing here. German superior optics have no influence in AH .Do we need a realistic gunsight in here for tanks? We don't have realistic K-14 or Revi computing gunsights in our planes, if we did the learning curve would be even more then it already is
(your quote)
Optics that reflect historical disparity could make the tiger worth its current price.
-
I'm saying those optics are what we need.
-
Well, for those who have been playing for a few years maybe , but think about how much 200 channel chatter that would come about from having it, for petes sake people won't and can't read simple instructions . How many questions in the text buffer would we see about how th3 sight works, I can see it now ..... what are all those line sa and what do they mean, heck people ask how to start the engine on a gv or how how do I fly. Then when you answer that question 400 more follow :furious,. Maybe a download like skinns for the ones that want to use it but to make it a default sight only would cause all of us to be driven crazy.
-
lol that is pure propaganda. Maybe the Tiger had it's engine disabled at best but no amount of 37MM ap could or ever did penetrated a Tiger's hull or turret.
Hmmm.....
This action was reported to Major Donald P Boyer Jr. S3, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion, by Captain W.H. Anstey (Commanding Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion) who witnessed the engagement.
-
Well, for those who have been playing for a few years maybe , but think about how much 200 channel chatter that would come about from having it, for petes sake people won't and can't read simple instructions . How many questions in the text buffer would we see about how th3 sight works, I can see it now ..... what are all those line sa and what do they mean, heck people ask how to start the engine on a gv or how how do I fly. Then when you answer that question 400 more follow :furious,. Maybe a download like skinns for the ones that want to use it but to make it a default sight only would cause all of us to be driven crazy.
No.. That's no good reason not to have them. Tough luck for anyone who comes to a sim game and refuses to climb the learning curve.
-
lol that is pure propaganda. Maybe the Tiger had it's engine disabled at best but no amount of 37MM ap could or ever did penetrated a Tiger's hull or turret. Also for the other comment about T-34's and ack compared to a M8 firing ap 37mm. I think 5 37mm acks hitting a tank at the same time would do more damage then 3 ap rounds from a M8. People need to read a few books rather then fictitious stories about M8's killing Tiger tanks.
Geez o Pete --
So if I throw 5 spitballs at you and they all hit you, this is more devistating to your body than a single bullet from a .22?
Methinks you are one who needs to go read a book.
-
See Rule #4
-
See Rule #4
-
oh for goodness sakes just add the m1 abrahms
-
This thread is full of special.
-
dirt911 - plz tipe proprly uterwize ppl dunt undarstands u. as to your post, firefly needs higher perk until then tiger has its uses but not many.
Bigplay ---
PzKpfw VI E Tiger
Hull Rear - 82@20°
Hull Bottom - 25@90°
Turret Rear - 80@90°
heres the penetration data for the m8s 37mm M6 gun (best HV 37mm of the war)
37mm M6 L / 53 (All data is displayed in milimeters vs. RHA / FHA plate @ 30°)
AP M74 Shot
Muzzle Velocity - 792 m/s
Penetration at 100m - 71mm / 52 mm
penetration at 500m - 54mm / 40 mm
APC M51B1 Shot
MV - 884 m/s
penetration at 100m - 63mm / 59 mm
and at 500m - 55mm / 52 mm
APC M51B2 Shot
MV - 884 m/s
penetration at 100m - 63mm / 59 mm
500m - 55mm / 52 mm
so on paper tiger can be killed by rear and that includes turret. sides well thats almost the same to penetrate since it was 60-80mm upper and lower hull was 25mm and turret sides 80mm all at 90°. so all in all at 48yrds i can see a tiger being killed for his futile attempt to traverse the turret 180° perhaps he should have slewd tank and turret. cant say dont know terrain or situation other then one dead tiger heh.
People need to read a few books rather then fictitious stories about M8's killing Tiger tanks.
ive read books and you take all of them with a grain of salt and compaire and really its up to you to read the evidence,documents,charts and make up your own mind with as much information as possible instead of saying "it was this way" when in reality history is never like that.
and moot i would LOVE historic optics and 100% agree it would be worth those high perks. Just might see IVHs and Tigers only if that happens :P
and heres 1 refrence site that got me started a long time ago about tanks and more importantly the data behind it not just eye witness reports or AARs or books that always seem to make something what it wasnt, or in most cases lack of detail, minus the few that are well researched and have added those extra details in. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp)
and the people who were trying to prove him wrong..give actual facts and docs. it helps a lot more then the "your not educated enough so ill just flame you for it instead" attitude. BTW when i 1st read that AAR (quite some time ago) i WAS skeptical but with the data it is very plausable givin the ammo type and range and a dash of luck and guts...or insanity not sure which they go together well in some situations.
-
Bigplay, I wasn't going to say anything else because you are obviously confused. But I have a few minutes, so let us review:
I had an M8 turret me while in a T-34/85. This M8 can up behind me and by the time I got the barrel swung around my turret was out. No way on God's green earth that should ever happen no matter how many shots he takes.
What makes you say that?
Why because driving a T-34/76 onto a enemy field or town with all the field ack shooting at you doesn't kill you or your turret as quickly as a lone M8 shooting 1 37mm round at a time at a T-34/85. No way 5 hits from a 37mm should be able to do that. That's why .
You do realize that enemy field and town ack is firing HE, not AP, right?
Also for the other comment about T-34's and ack compared to a M8 firing ap 37mm. I think 5 37mm acks hitting a tank at the same time would do more damage then 3 ap rounds from a M8.
So if I throw 5 spitballs at you and they all hit you, this is more devastating to your body than a single bullet from a .22?
spitballs, town / field ack will track a T-34 will spitballs?
Since you have difficulty keeping up, let me recap . . .
Your original complaint, as you can see, is that the M-8 got your turret. Nice try to deflect attention from your error by changing the subject to tracking instead of turretting. But fail.
Town and field ack fire high explosive rounds, not armor piercing rounds. An M-8 shooting at your turret is in all likelihood firing AP rounds. Therefore, the M-8 is going to have a better chance at penetrating your armor and disabling your turret, especially if hitting the sides or rear of your T-34/85's turret -- which we know he did, because you say "he can [sic] up behind me" and "by the time I got my barrel swung around."
But, you are right, I shouldn't be telling you to read a book -- "think logically" would be more appropriate.
-
Hmmm.....
This action was reported to Major Donald P Boyer Jr. S3, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion, by Captain W.H. Anstey (Commanding Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Battalion) who witnessed the engagement.
Yep, the unit was part of the 7th AD and it happened in Belgium in December of 1944.
Came across another story of a M5A1 light tank taking out a Tiger II with its 37mm main gun when two of them fired on a Tiger II tank from elevated positions (firing down onto the Tiger II turret and rear compartment) but nothing else other than "a M5A1 tank driver told me this story of..."
ack-ack
-
but think about it tiger was built in a time where no other tank could kill it tiger was built too sweep all before it and keep on. eventually allied designers and tank crews became so desparete that, they were using ground troops too capture these things.
after capturing these tanks and many tests on 102mm armour only one allied gun could penetrare all the way through the armour,The QF 17 pounder a british gun but the british had no tanks at the time too mount it on.
So the american designers after studying the power too weight ratio of the sherman and weight of the gun mounted it on a sherman naming it the firefly this tank was excellent proving effective against tiger 1 although it still faced one problem sherman couldnt with stand an 88mm hit many crews of the day were not trained to deal with a tiger meaning still,even though the right gun was there the tank was there and all
it still could sweep all before it.
THE END
I'm afraid your a bit clueless about the realities of armored warfare. As a single example during the initial German advance on Bastogne many fractured allied units were thrown into the mix. US M-10's played a critical role and scored numerous kills on both panther and tiger tanks. Google 644 TD Bn and you'll find tremendous exploits in defense of the Elsenborn ridge....no tank ever "swept all before it". You simply want a "god mode" tank...go play quake :aok
-
I put an 88mm into the side of an M4 at less than 500 yards, just above the tracks...... he turned his gun over and blasted me out of my Tiger, and back into the tower and continued merrily on his way.
Issues are one thing, but in real life 88m's dont give a hoot about lag, who's a better gunner, or armor thickness under 500yds....they smash through you and out the other side.
I dont want an uber tank, I want one who's merrits are reflective of thier actual performance. The Tiger is obviously suffering in game, and somthing should be done to either it, or the game itself.
Personaly id like to see the 88mm instantly track a tank if it hits the side, or at-least have a good chance of doing so, mabey a little better terrain would help it as well, it seems to be a vehicle more suited to open country......
-
I put an 88mm into the side of an M4 at less than 500 yards, just above the tracks...... he turned his gun over and blasted me out of my Tiger, and back into the tower and continued merrily on his way.
Issues are one thing, but in real life 88m's dont give a hoot about lag, who's a better gunner, or armor thickness under 500yds....they smash through you and out the other side.
I dont want an uber tank, I want one who's merrits are reflective of thier actual performance. The Tiger is obviously suffering in game, and somthing should be done to either it, or the game itself.
Personaly id like to see the 88mm instantly track a tank if it hits the side, or at-least have a good chance of doing so, mabey a little better terrain would help it as well, it seems to be a vehicle more suited to open country......
That is a very good point you just made however watch and see what kind of responce you get from the peanut gallery.
-
I sincerly hope HT doesnt put much stock into how many posts somone has made, even monkeys can babble... :aok
-
Unlike smaller caliber tank AP rounds and APCR/HVAP rounds the standard KwK 36 Pzgr. 39 (APCBC) round had an explosive filler, so it wouldn't go through a tank; it would go into a tank and explode. The result should be obvious to everyone.
As a side note I'll add that the German 75 mm rounds also had explosive fillers, as did the American 75 mm, 76 mm and 90 mm APCBC rounds. However the British found that the explosive filler in the 76 mm was unreliable and removed it in their tanks.
-
Bigplay ---
PzKpfw VI E Tiger
Hull Rear - 82@20°
Hull Bottom - 25@90°
Turret Rear - 80@90°
heres the penetration data for the m8s 37mm M6 gun (best HV 37mm of the war)
37mm M6 L / 53 (All data is displayed in milimeters vs. RHA / FHA plate @ 30°)
AP M74 Shot
Muzzle Velocity - 792 m/s
Penetration at 100m - 71mm / 52 mm
penetration at 500m - 54mm / 40 mm
APC M51B1 Shot
MV - 884 m/s
penetration at 100m - 63mm / 59 mm
and at 500m - 55mm / 52 mm
APC M51B2 Shot
MV - 884 m/s
penetration at 100m - 63mm / 59 mm
500m - 55mm / 52 mm
so on paper tiger can be killed by rear and that includes turret. sides well thats almost the same to penetrate since it was 60-80mm upper and lower hull was 25mm and turret sides 80mm all at 90°. so all in all at 48yrds i can see a tiger being killed for his futile attempt to traverse the turret 180° perhaps he should have slewd tank and turret. cant say dont know terrain or situation other then one dead tiger heh.
You're confusing "lower hull" and "hull bottom". Hull bottom means the underside of the tank. The Tiger had a massive one-piece rear plate of 80 mm. I don't see how a 37 mm weapon could penetrate the Tiger's armor. In addition to the Tiger's armor being extremely thick it was also of very high quality, and it over match the 37 mm round by a ridiculous 2.16:1.
(http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/Tiger1-2002-Picz/Armor_Scheme_Tiger1.png)
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3038/2672574316_0d188b6349.jpg?v=0)
You can clearly see the massive plate and the armor shrouds protecting the exhaust ports.
-
I sincerly hope HT doesnt put much stock into how many posts somone has made, even monkeys can babble... :aok
Post the film.
-
You're confusing "lower hull" and "hull bottom". Hull bottom means the underside of the tank. The Tiger had a massive one-piece rear plate of 80 mm. I don't see how a 37 mm weapon could penetrate the Tiger's armor. In addition to the Tiger's armor being extremely thick it was also of very high quality, and it over match the 37 mm round by a ridiculous 2.16:1.
Not universally of very high quality.
In a report on a Tiger I captured by the British in North Africa, they noted that the 80 mm of armour plate actually only gave the equivalent of 64 mm of RHA protection, due to flaws in the armour quality.
Best penetration of US 37 mm (L57) I've found is 71 mm RHA/ 53 mm FHA at 100 m with M74 shot, or 63/59 mm with M51b1/B2 APCBC
With flawed armour, a 37 mm may indeed kill a Tiger from the sides or rear. Stranger things have happened in war...
-
In a report on a Tiger I captured by the British in North Africa, they noted that the 80 mm of armour plate actually only gave the equivalent of 64 mm of RHA protection, due to flaws in the armour quality.
What happened if the shell had to go through some the exterior attachments (muffler, muffler shield, air cleaner,,,,)?
-
What happened if the shell had to go through some the exterior attachments (muffler, muffler shield, air cleaner,,,,)?
The same thing that would happen to any other shell? A somewhat disingenuous question...
I'm not saying that the story of an M8 killing a Tiger I from behind at short range is likely.
I'm just stating that there is enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed theoretically possible for a shot from an M8 to penetrate the rear of a Tiger I.
This is from a wartime report from the 7th Armored Division while in Belgium in December of 1944 - quoted in the US Army Armor School publication 'The Battle of St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December, 1944 - An Historical Example of Armor in Defence', page 31:
"While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (Troop A, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batallion; Troop B, 87th Cavalry Recconnaisance Squadron) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from B Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s thin rear armor, and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position."
There is a footnote reference stating the action was reported to Major Donald P. Boyer, Jr., S3, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion, by Captain W. H. Anstey (commanding Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion) who witnessed the engagement.
The same account is also found, word for word, including the footnote, in the 7th Armoured Divisions WW2 history 'From the Beaches to the Baltic' on page 86.
Amazing what you can find on the internet...
-
I'm just stating that there is enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed theoretically possible for a shot from an M8 to penetrate the rear of a Tiger I.
Yes those are key words.
-
The same account is also found, word for word, including the footnote, in the 7th Armoured Divisions WW2 history 'From the Beaches to the Baltic' on page 86.
Yep. And identical wording means one thing; they got the info from the same source. Which is never good for "proving" an argument....
Now in AH you don't have to be within 25 yrds to kill a Tiger with an M8. And the M8 can take an impressive amount of punishment sometimes. I even one-shotted a Tiger last night in a Panzer, about 30 degrees off the left front, 2500 yrd shot. The damage model just seems a bit inconsistent to me (foe all GVs).
-
37mm guys?....
Soviets had a 76mm, and they where ramming Tigers in desperation....please stop the madness, and let the 37mm hoax die allready.....its just emberassing.
I've shot a tiger in the arse 7 times from an m8, and that finaly killed it... but it isnt the prescribed method for dealing with tigers, uber M4's are...
-
In a report on a Tiger I captured by the British in North Africa, they noted that the 80 mm of armour plate actually only gave the equivalent of 64 mm of RHA protection, due to flaws in the armour quality.
Do you have a source for this? I'd love to see it.
-
The same thing that would happen to any other shell? A somewhat disingenuous question...
I'm not saying that the story of an M8 killing a Tiger I from behind at short range is likely.
I'm just stating that there is enough evidence to conclude that it is indeed theoretically possible for a shot from an M8 to penetrate the rear of a Tiger I.
This is from a wartime report from the 7th Armored Division while in Belgium in December of 1944 - quoted in the US Army Armor School publication 'The Battle of St. Vith, Belgium, 17-23 December, 1944 - An Historical Example of Armor in Defence', page 31:
"While northern and eastern flanks had been heavily engaged, the northeastern sector (Troop A, 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron; Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batallion; Troop B, 87th Cavalry Recconnaisance Squadron) had been rather quiet. The only excitement there had been was when an M8 armored car from B Troop destroyed a Tiger tank. The armored car had been in a concealed position at right angles to run along a trail in front of the main line of resistance. As the tank passed the armored car, the M8 slipped out of position and started up the trail behind the Tiger, accelerating in an attempt to close. At the same moment the German tank commander saw the M8, and started traversing his gun to bear on the armored car. It was a race between the Americans who were attempting to close so that their 37-mm would be effective in the Tiger’s thin rear armor, and the Germans who were desperately striving to bring their 88 to bear. Rapidly, the M8 had closed to 25 yards, and quickly pumped in three rounds; the lumbering Tiger stopped and shuddered; there was a muffled explosion, followed by flames which bellowed out of the turret and engine ports, after which the armored car returned to its position."
There is a footnote reference stating the action was reported to Major Donald P. Boyer, Jr., S3, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion, by Captain W. H. Anstey (commanding Company A, 38th Armored Infantry Batttalion) who witnessed the engagement.
The same account is also found, word for word, including the footnote, in the 7th Armoured Divisions WW2 history 'From the Beaches to the Baltic' on page 86.
Amazing what you can find on the internet...
Like I said in the other tank thread, and probably the one before that as well: I've read that book as well, but I have several reservations against the description of that particular engagement. First of all the Tiger's rear armor is described as "thin", when in fact it was as thick as the side armor at 80 mm. I've asked around for some form of confirmation of this engagement, but have found little or nothing to support it. While I don't really doubt the engagement happened I think it is far more likely the M8 ambushed a PzKpfW IV rather than a Tiger. A fact lost on many is that in France the Americans and British often referred to all German tanks as "Tigers".
If you have more substantial information on the engagement I would love to read/see it. At least if I were that M8 commander (and if the battle conditions allowed for it) I'd take a picture of that kill!
-
I do have an account of 20mm's from an aircraft torching a Tiger. As far as known, the 20mm's bounced into it's underside/back and managed to start a fire so the crew had to abandon. The tank was found with a message from the crew, with "Bravo RAF" on the hull.
-
"an account" ?
-
I do have an account of 20mm's from an aircraft torching a Tiger. As far as known, the 20mm's bounced into it's underside/back and managed to start a fire so the crew had to abandon. The tank was found with a message from the crew, with "Bravo RAF" on the hull.
I've read this account in an RAF biography, i can't remember which one i would have to go through them. If i recall correctly it was in Italy.
-
I typed this up some years back. It was the renowned RAF pilot Duncan Smith. Not the Ian, but maybe his father?
I found my text block.
"Ok, here goes:
Group Captain Duncan Smith, S France 1944. Spitfire IX I belive.
"Continuing past Vienne, and on open road, I spotted a Tiger Tank going as hard as it coulod towards Lyons. More in hope than in anger I gave it all my remaining ammunition. To my utter amazement it belched smoke and caught fire. When I gave my report to Tim Lucas, the senior Army Liasion Officer, he did not belive me, shaking his head and muttering that a Tiger was too tough for the shells of a Spitfire. I got my own back when I took him to the spot in my jeep, after we got to Lyons on 7 September, and showed him the tank. It was there I am pleased to say, burnt out, with "Bravo RAF" painted on its blackened hull. To me the sight was worth a couple of Me 109s. Apparently some armour-piercing incendiary shells had riocheted off the tarmac road into the oil tank and engine - pure luck, but very satisfying."
I think Milo also posted something about a vulnerability about fire, from leaking fluids. I also did comment about that it would not necessarily have to have been a tiger. Probably not a Panther, since the roadwheels were a dead give-away though.
-
I wonder what mechanic took the belly plates off to repair it and forgot to put them back on :rofl
-
That'll be it angus, yes it's the former leader of the conservative party Ian duncan smith's father.
-
Again, allied personnel nicknamed all German tanks "Tigers". I would also think such a "satisfying" occasion would warrant a photo of the tank. With 25 mm thick belly armor there is no way a 20 mm ricochet would do anything more than bounce off. If the tank was leaking fuel it might have caught fire, but that adds nothing to the argument that a Tiger's armor could be penetrated by a 37 mm M3 gun.
-
British 17lber was the most effective Allied gun of WW2 without question.
-
The tank was found with a message from the crew, with "Bravo RAF" on the hull.
That is a very dubious assumption on your part. You assume that after being attacked by the RAF and set ablaze the Germans abandoned the tank and just stood there... waiting for the tank to burn out and cool down enough for them to write a message on it. I find that highly unlikely. I find it infinitely more believable that the German crew continued on their way on foot or by other means of transportation, and when the tank had cooled off the local French wrote the message.
-
I find that highly unlikely. I find it infinitely more believable that the German crew continued on their way on foot or by other means of transportation, and when the tank had cooled off the local French wrote the message.
Or the Germans were gunned down after climbing out of the tank. The quote from "The Little Drummer Girl" comes to mind:
"What is this?"
"Scars from a burning tank"
"These?"
"Bullet holes, from climbing out of the tank"
-
I guess there was no fingerprint analysis.
The "who did it" is of course a completely open thing. But such gestures as well as the other side of gestures were used on quite some occasions.
Your theory about the locals is IMHO quite good. However it could have been a case of a crew wanting to get out of the mess as well....
Here:
"Again, allied personnel nicknamed all German tanks "Tigers". I would also think such a "satisfying" occasion would warrant a photo of the tank. With 25 mm thick belly armor there is no way a 20 mm ricochet would do anything more than bounce off. If the tank was leaking fuel it might have caught fire, but that adds nothing to the argument that a Tiger's armor could be penetrated by a 37 mm M3 gun."
I somehow thought they were also nicknamed a panzer, - or did an allied soldier never see one?
As for the photo opportunity, - absolutely a minority of WW2 fighting population carried a camera, and what we have available on the net is but a glimpse of the lot. I have had the luck of being a guest at the IWM WW2 photo archives, so I'm not too green on what is there and what isn't. Being exposed to death every day doesn't also exactly make you into a japanese tourist collecting for the album. (Sorry Japan ;))
On this forum, years back, by the way, there is an account of an M8 killing a Tiger from behind. Many shots and no range.
-
On this forum, years back, by the way, there is an account of an M8 killing a Tiger from behind. Many shots and no range.
Despite numerous sources of the AARs on this particular engagement, since BigPlay and others can't wrap their heads around it, it didn't happen.
ack-ack
-
Numerous recitals perhaps, but one source as ScatterFire pointed out:
Yep. And identical wording means one thing; they got the info from the same source. Which is never good for "proving" an argument....
-
How often have we read that the 109K-4 had 15 mm MG 151 cowl guns in various publications just because Green made that one mistake back in 1960. Unfortunately many authors don't check their sources before copying other authors' material.
-
Numerous recitals perhaps, but one source as ScatterFire pointed out:
When the source is a unit AAR by those that took part and/or witnessed the engagement, it's a pretty good source. Good enough for the US Army in teaching the use of armor in the defense.
ack-ack
-
Despite numerous sources of the AARs on this particular engagement, since BigPlay and others can't wrap their heads around it, it didn't happen.
ack-ack
Hey AkAk, last time I checked this was America and people have a right to their opinions. What's up ? Why do you have to make unnecessary remark towards me in every post. I responded to yours civilly and without prejudice towards you. But everytime you have to slip in something that has nothing to do with the topic We are just having a discussion and in every post. You don't like me FINE, I can deal with that . Can you make an attempt to refrain from anything outside of the topic? I really dont want to go down the path that numerous other thread have,
-
When the source is a unit AAR by those that took part and/or witnessed the engagement, it's a pretty good source.
You don't know the author's source since he didn't produce it in the book. For all you know he never read it and was just reciting second hand information. No source has been posted here, only the conclusions of an author who may or may not have had access to the actual source.
-
You don't know the author's source since he didn't produce it in the book. For all you know he never read it and was just reciting second hand information. No source has been posted here, only the conclusions of an author who may or may not have had access to the actual source.
He just likes to try and put me down every opportunity he gets. I have read many of his posts on various topics an most sound like they were obtained through very light reading.
-
Hey AkAk, last time I checked this was America and people have a right to their opinions. What's up ? Why do you have to make unnecessary remark towards me in every post. I responded to yours civilly and without prejudice towards you. But everytime you have to slip in something that has nothing to do with the topic We are just having a discussion and in every post. You don't like me FINE, I can deal with that . Can you make an attempt to refrain from anything outside of the topic? I really dont want to go down the path that numerous other thread have,
How is it that American right to your opinion counts for more than AKAK's? Refute his argument or concede.
-
How is it that American right to your opinion counts for more than AKAK's? Refute his argument or concede.
That's BigPlay's point. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinions.
-
How's what AKAK said contrary to that?
-
How is it that American right to your opinion counts for more than AKAK's? Refute his argument or concede.
The difference being I don't make constant remarks about him in every post or belittle his position . Read back in this thread and the Sherman thread , he has something to say about me in every post mostly discounting my opinion. Like me he does have a right to his opinion and views. I however do not then make reference to how little he knows or about the relability of his reference source like he does.
-
So just refute his factual arguments.
-
How is it that American right to your opinion counts for more than AKAK's? Refute his argument or concede.
Who made you the forum Sheriff? refute or concede :lol since when do I take orders from you? Please post that film.
-
So just refute his factual arguments.
DieHard did, are you commanding me to do the same ? If so I concur with DieHard's post that refutes his statement about the alleged occurrence..
-
Who made you the forum Sheriff? Since when do you decide whose pertinent arguments are orders? What film are you talking about?
-
Well, this has gone so far off course it is pointless now.
Might I strongly suggest all of you cease with the personal comments about each other and keep these thread discussions consistent with the topics.