Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: moot on September 10, 2009, 10:02:45 AM
-
There's been arguments over the relative strengths of the Firefly's and Tiger's armor and guns. Back in the Dawn of Battle event, what I saw hinted at the M4's front armor, incl turret armor, being able to shrug off Tiger rounds easily, while its guns was easily able to damage the Tiger's turret at all ranges up to way out around 5K+ (or quite a bit less if the Tigers were high enough). IIRC some people still weren't convinced.. Here's a film (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/film47_M4_Tiger_LongRange.ahf) showing the same thing that happened in the event, but with the M4 sitting 700ft higher and 4.7K away from the Tiger. None of the Tiger's rounds penetrated. The film doesn't seem to show it, but the Tiger towered out after the last hit disabled its turret.
The turret hit:
(http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/tiger_m4hit.jpg)
-
Couldnt ask for a better spot to hit a Tiger. The front/top/turret is the largest section of 25mm armor on the tank. I normally aim for either turret center, or rear top center, and walk the rounds in to finish my shot string turret/top/front. Ive taken Tigers out coming straight down vertical and put a couple 37mm volleys right into that section of the turret top. 37mm AP at 200 yrds will blow right thru it. Im not surprised the excellent AP rounds of the M4 did too. Theres a lot to be said of sitting higher up then the Tiger.
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/tiger1-1.jpg)
(http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/tiger1-targetcopy.jpg)
-
Even with both tanks at the same altitude, I've noticed the same thing. The Firefly has a fantastic cannon and its sloped armor is tough to penetrate even at 2.5-3k yards.
-
There's been arguments over the relative strengths of the Firefly's and Tiger's armor and guns. Back in the Dawn of Battle event, what I saw hinted at the M4's front armor, incl turret armor, being able to shrug off Tiger rounds easily, while its guns was easily able to damage the Tiger's turret at all ranges up to way out around 5K+ (or quite a bit less if the Tigers were high enough). IIRC some people still weren't convinced.. Here's a film (http://dasmuppets.com/public/moot/OneWeekStuff/film47_M4_Tiger_LongRange.ahf) showing the same thing that happened in the event, but with the M4 sitting 700ft higher and 4.7K away from the Tiger. None of the Tiger's rounds penetrated. The film doesn't seem to show it, but the Tiger towered out after the last hit disabled its turret.
What is the penetrating power of the 17 pounder at 4,700yards?
I know it was capable of penetrating 140 mm of armor at 500 meters (546.806 yds) and 131 mm of armor at 1000 meters (1093.613 yds) at 30 degrees with the APCBC round. On paper, it was able to penetrate 209 mm of armor at 500 meters and 192 mm of armor at 1000 meters at 30 degrees with the APDS round.
I would think at 4297.68 Meters (4700 yds) the penetrating power of either the APCBC or APDS round would be significantly less and probably wouldn't be able to penetrate even at a 30 degree angle. I mean, the 17 pounder was a great main tank gun but it wasn't that über.
Even with both tanks at the same altitude, I've noticed the same thing. The Firefly has a fantastic cannon and its sloped armor is tough to penetrate even at 2.5-3k yards.
It shouldn't as the Firefly didn't have any mobility or armor advantages over the standard Sherman.
ack-ack
-
I dunno AKAK, I know next to nothing about armor. I'd run it thru matlab (don't remember how to do it with excel), but the curve from tarrif.net's data for the 17 pounder doesn't show any clue of the shape of the kind of drop you'd get past the round's effectiveness at extreme ranges.
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3064/3907740223_92893f4864_o.png)
In practice though, the M4 has no trouble penetrating the Tiger up to around 4.5K. My memory from the Tunisia event is going, but I do recall from that and from in the MAs, that the M4 penetrates the Tiger more easily than vice versa once you get past a certain range.. Around 3 or 3.5K. This is as far as front armor goes. From almost any other other angle the M4 is either almost tied or outclassed by the Tiger. That's the trend I've seen. I have no doubt that the M4's turret is almost impossible to score damage against in an average exchange with equal experienced pilots at long range, whereas the Tiger lasts something like (rough ballpark) 60% as long.
-
moin
im notic it too that the tiger had a lot of problems to kill an M4 at long range if his front armor is at 12 uhr position.
Maybe all your aspekts are right...But i have read alot of wwII reports of Tiger Comanders and i have never heread about that problems. The m4 was always an easy kill only the kannon of the firefly was a problem.
cu chris3
-
The m4 was always an easy kill only the kannon of the firefly was a problem.
cu chris3
Exactly, in real life the Firefly's armor was not better than that of the standard M4 Sherman. The Tiger's main gun was easily able to slice through the standard Sherman and should be no different with the Firefly in game.
ack-ack
-
Tiger is useless with all the M4s around should drop its perk value to about twice the M4 if not less :salute
-
Tiger is useless with all the M4s around should drop its perk value to about twice the M4 if not less :salute
Better to make the M4 more expensive, maybe about 12 perks.
But this is another rerun conversation. Same points have been made over and over, nearly everyone agrees, same conversation will happen again in 6 months.
-
Well heres a great Tiger sight anyways http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html
-
Even with both tanks at the same altitude, I've noticed the same thing. The Firefly has a fantastic cannon and its sloped armor is tough to penetrate even at 2.5-3k yards.
armor as thin as the Sherman errrrr firefly sloped or not is and in real life was easily penetrated by the 75mm L/48 gun on a panzer. No way even at range.
-
Tiger is useless with all the M4s around should drop its perk value to about twice the M4 if not less :salute
Better to make the M4 more expensive, maybe about 12 perks.
But this is another rerun conversation. Same points have been made over and over, nearly everyone agrees, same conversation will happen again in 6 months.
This is an issue that wouldn't be solved by perking the Firefly, its like sticking a finger to plug a leaking dam. Its a modeling issue that needs to be fixed with a little bit of coding.
ack-ack
-
I cant seem to interpret how that AP round hit that Tiger in the pictures.
There is a hit sprite down in the front turret/cannon/face plate, suspiciously near the MG window. Then there is the large sprite in the top turret, which at first I thought was an angled entry shot into the tanks 25mm plate.
But the more I look at it the more it looks like the round either went thru some of the tanks thickest armor, or, it went thru the MG window. That gun mantle plate has to be at least 100 to 120 mm of the toughest armor plate put on a WW-ll tank.
Maybe Moot can clarify exactly what is happening in the picture.
-
I didn't code the game so I'm just guessing.. it might've passed thru or ricochet'd off the plate, then penetrated and damaged the turret where the bigger hit sprite is.
The film is linked to, you can download it and see the round's trajectory and hit sprites for yourself in 3D.
-
My guess is that round/plate overmatching isn't modeled. In real life the 88 mm overmatched the Shermans 51 mm plate and thus reduced the effect of slope. The Tiger's 100-120 mm armor also overmatched the 75 mm round reducing its effectiveness. It's difficult to accurately gauge these effects.
-
I've come to not expect too much out of GV damage modeling. long-range gripes aside, it is quite annoying to watch HVAP rounds fired at point blank range bounce off of M4's :furious
-
In-game we dont have the better optics in german gunsights ( doesnt matter if u can penetrate armor if u cant see the target)
<IRL tanker >
-
In-game we dont have the better optics in german gunsights ( doesnt matter if u can penetrate armor if u cant see the target)
<IRL tanker >
Regardless if we did have historically accurate sights, that Firefly should never had scored a kill from that far out (4,700 yds).
ack-ack
-
Ack, I agree that something is wrong with the M4 as we have it. I will not address the 17lb gun as it was a good anti tank gun capable of killing any german tank. However, the armor of the Firefly is the issue. Based on historical data the Firefly was only a standard sherman with an upgraded turret to handle the 17lb gun and other than the front turret armor being 89mm all other armor was the standard sherman armor with the front armor being no more than 51mm. So with that said the Panzer we have in the game with its 75mm gun should be able to penetrate the shermans at range unless it is a frontal turret shot. The 75mm on the panzer can penetrate 79mm at 1000yds, 70mm at 1500yds, and 62mm at 2000yds. At 500yds it can penetrate the front turret armor. Now we bring on the 88mm:
with APCBC rounds it can penetrate 110mm at 500yds, 101mm at 1000yds, 93mm at 1500yds, and 84mm at 2000yds.
with APCR rounds it can penetrate 126mm at 500yds, 103mm at 1000yds, 85mm at 1500yds, and 70mm at 2000yds.
So we see that the Tiger should kill the Sherman at range if not a direct frontal turret hit at 2000yds or more. Anything less than 2000yds the Tiger should slice through it. And the stand kill range on shermans was between 1,800 and 2,100 m based on historical data.
In the game I have hit shermans broadside to the turret at less than 1500 on the scope and watched the round bounce off. WTF???
I have also watched hits broadside to the hull and nothing happens. Again WTF? I don't know exactly how a kill shot is coded in the program but it needs to be fixed or the perk price for a M4 needs to increase at least double what it is. I have even had a tiger killed by frontal armor shots from the T34/85 at ranges greater than 1000m and that according to historical data should not happen. So either the Tigers armor is not modeled right or the shermans is not modeled right?
-
Well I would say I like the Sherman, because I like the gunsight and it seems that it is more accurate then the other tanks. In the Sherman and like in any tank I use I try not get into a frontal attack with. Even with a flak panzer. I'm of the thinking that a panzer is the earlier tank to kill of all. But again that might seem that way because I see the most of them at any one time. Plus one more thing that might make you think the Sherman is a better tank is because the more experience tankers are using the Sherman's. I do think the Tiger would be used more if it was not perk so high over the Sherman. I've been killed in a Sherman from long range from all different tanks. But most of the kills have come from me or the other tank running left to right not in a frontal attack. In my 10 months of playing this game and mostly in GV's it is knowing where to hit the tank and at what angle. I've been in all the tanks and have been killed from long range in each. But if I can get line up straight with the other tank in a frontal attack it is who can hit the week shot in the other tank that wins or who can hit the other tank the most. But with the thing of the tiger vs Sherman it does not happen often for me but I try and not shoot until the tiger see me or I can shoot it from the side or back. I love to shoot all tanks broadside at any range. But this is just what I have seen in my short time in the game.
-
In the game I have hit shermans broadside to the turret at less than 1500 on the scope and watched the round bounce off. WTF???
I have also watched hits broadside to the hull and nothing happens. Again WTF?
Film, please :)
-
I love to shoot all tanks broadside at any range. But this is just what I have seen in my short time in the game.
Problem is, no Firefly or any standard Sherman could score a kill on a Tiger from 4,700 yards and vice versa in real life but its common place in this game.
ack-ack
-
Moot, I dont have video of the instances I mentioned but I will be more mindful of recording in the future so you can see what I am talking about. I forget to record alot as I get caught up in the game and just dont think about it.
BigKev
-
This is an interesting subject and i haven't come up against an M4 VS Tiger that i have on film (i rarely film) i do have some M4 kills on recording from a distance of 7,000ft ill do more recording in both but IMO the M4's range is just far better than that of the tiger and i don't see the hitting power of the AP round being weaker with added range (maybe it does get a little weaker but not by much)
on the other hand the Tigers range is enough for most fights but when talking ranges 4000ft or more it drops off like a rock. the hitting power seems to be there but the range is id say 1/2 or so of the M4....
Does anyone have data on the the distance the tiger can shoot with the gun at full height? Vs the M4's? i know i have seen M4 rounds go well past 12,000ft. Well past any vis you can have on a ground target.
Usch. (colleen)
-
USCH, I think you are on the right track as to why we see ridiculous kills at range. Both the 88mm and the 17lb gun that were mounted on the tanks (not the flak version of the 88mm nor the 3in anti aircraft gun). So when we look at max range in altitude you will loose penetration By all research I have seen the 88mm could penetrate the hull, rear, superstructure, and the turret side armor of the M4 at a maximum range of 3500m (3827yds). It could penetrate the T34/85's hull at a max of 3500m then it varied on the range for the turret and superstructure from around 2100m to 3200m. The 17lb gun in the M4 had a penetration range of 209mm to 118mm of armor at ranges from 457m (500yds) to 130mm to 84mm at a range of 1828m (2000yds) but this was very dependent on the type of round used to achieve max penetration. Keeping in mind both guns had maximum penetration by firiing on a flatter trajectory or a stretched arc vice the "lobbing" effect. I make the assumption that by firing at max firing angle the round would loose its maximum muzzle velocity as the range increased. It is hard to find data on this. The 88mm flak could fire up to 36,000 ft but that was using an HE round designed to shoot aircraft. I doubt a round could travel that far and penetrate a tanks armor as we have in the game. However, penetration of armor is dependent on a lot of things (thickness, angle of armor, range, muzzle velocity, etc, etc). But I do think we are seeing kills in this game that were not possible in actual combat. How to fix or account for it? I have no clue.
-
One other factor to take into account.
I suspect this is how face hardened armour plate differs from cast armour in penetration angle against a round with a tungsten etc. core.
B is face hardened plate, A is cast armour and C is the angel after which the penetration is impossible, not due armour thickness, but due the core ricocheting away from the plate.
Notice that the nominal penetration is the same at 0 deg (90deg).
(http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/5674/pene1.jpg)
-C+
-
Does penetration values take into account the variously quality of armor ?
Some sites claims Tiger had better armor than most other tanks.
-
Well I would say I like the Sherman, because I like the gunsight and it seems that it is more accurate then the other tanks. In the Sherman and like in any tank I use I try not get into a frontal attack with. Even with a flak panzer. I'm of the thinking that a panzer is the earlier tank to kill of all. But again that might seem that way because I see the most of them at any one time. Plus one more thing that might make you think the Sherman is a better tank is because the more experience tankers are using the Sherman's. I do think the Tiger would be used more if it was not perk so high over the Sherman. I've been killed in a Sherman from long range from all different tanks. But most of the kills have come from me or the other tank running left to right not in a frontal attack. In my 10 months of playing this game and mostly in GV's it is knowing where to hit the tank and at what angle. I've been in all the tanks and have been killed from long range in each. But if I can get line up straight with the other tank in a frontal attack it is who can hit the week shot in the other tank that wins or who can hit the other tank the most. But with the thing of the tiger vs Sherman it does not happen often for me but I try and not shoot until the tiger see me or I can shoot it from the side or back. I love to shoot all tanks broadside at any range. But this is just what I have seen in my short time in the game.
What we are saying is that the armor on the sherman is not modeled accurately and that the effective penetration at range is off in the game. It works both ways in some instances. I guess what would need to known is the programming that goes into determining a penetrating kill shot or a disabling shot. Does HTC take into consideration all the factors for round penetration by each gun we have against each vehicles armor attributes. In reality of WWII the 88mm was the most accurate gun due to its muzzle velocity and round size. The large round of the 88m and the velocity it traveled made it extremely accurate. Next to that would be the panthers gun for accuracy. But at the ranges we see GV combat in this game the tigers 88mm should penetrate the sherman easily no matter where it hits. Now if you are like me and try to shoot a range (1500 or greater) you do not see the effectiveness of the 88mm as it should be.
-
The ranges of the weaponry mentioned by some here are things of fairy tales. If you are interested I would suggest finding the eye witness accounts by the tank drivers themselves. It was very rare that a tiger commander would take a shot at another tank at over 1000 meters. Some admit to 1200 meters but only under perfect condtions. A few tigers were killed by very close range 37mm high velocity rounds- such as a close rear attack (like a stuart within 100m) but others withstood over 200 rounds being bounced off. In general the German tank commanders liked to get within about 800m before shooting and the allies within 400m of a tiger to have a chance at disabling it. Killing a tank from 2 miles away is a thing of games only. Oh yeah- you should also check on the maximum amount of sight magnification that was available at the time. And yes, as soon as the projectile leaves the muzzle it starts dropping and loosing velocity. Real life and the myriads of numbers on what guns were supposed to do, don't often match.
-
Moot, I dont have video of the instances I mentioned but I will be more mindful of recording in the future so you can see what I am talking about. I forget to record alot as I get caught up in the game and just dont think about it.
Turn your auto-film on. It's very helpful for spotting bugs and getting them fixed.
-
The ranges of the weaponry mentioned by some here are things of fairy tales. If you are interested I would suggest finding the eye witness accounts by the tank drivers themselves. It was very rare that a tiger commander would take a shot at another tank at over 1000 meters. Some admit to 1200 meters but only under perfect condtions. A few tigers were killed by very close range 37mm high velocity rounds- such as a close rear attack (like a stuart within 100m) but others withstood over 200 rounds being bounced off. In general the German tank commanders liked to get within about 800m before shooting and the allies within 400m of a tiger to have a chance at disabling it. Killing a tank from 2 miles away is a thing of games only. Oh yeah- you should also check on the maximum amount of sight magnification that was available at the time. And yes, as soon as the projectile leaves the muzzle it starts dropping and loosing velocity. Real life and the myriads of numbers on what guns were supposed to do, don't often match.
[/quote
Dude, you are very misinformed on this issue. During WWII the germans had some of the best optics on the planet and not to mention their range finding equipment. In addition the type of terrain you are in will dictate the range at which you can engage the enemy. On the steppes of Russia the Tiger and the Panther used the superior range of their guns to destroy T34 before the russians could close. In Africa the 88 flak would kill british tanks at over 1000m in the ambush. In the hedge rows of Normandy and the wooded areas of France and the low countries of course you will have shorter firing ranges. There are accounts of tiger commanders in russia engaging t34's at out to ranges of 2500 meters and more. Why? Depending on where the round hit it could penetrate the armor. At that range there was really no sure chance of getting a kill shot on a tiger or a panther. No way would a tiger commander if he had range as an advantage would wait and close to within 800m of the enemy before he fired. You need to read books like Panzer Leader, Panzer Aces, and such so you can see the ranges at which armor battles were fought. And killing a tank at 2 miles is only a game????? WTF???? You must not have researched anything before you posted. Both the germans and allies had kills at that range and today the record tank to tank kill is held by the British Cahllenger with a kill at 5.1km. And when a round leaves the barrel it does lose velocity but depending on the round and the powder charge, barrel length, and such other variables tanks inWWII and today can did achieve extreme accuracy and kills at range. The original topic was to address the kill shot at extreme range. 1000m to 2000 meters is not extreme. Maybe you need the metric system 101 course: 1200m= 1312yds which equals .745 miles, 2000m= 2187yds which equals just over 1.24 miles. All ranges in which a tiger, panther, or firefly could achieve a kill shot.
-
moin
luck at this page.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-1%20FILES/tigerfibel.pdf)
it is called Tiger Fibel, (The German Handboock for the tank crews) at page 90 there is for example the sherman, not the firefly, there you can see at what ranges the tiger is in danger.
all red area is save for the tiger and he can kill the other tank, all green area is a danger for the tiger.
page 83 is interestening too.
cu chris3
-
I hate to b a bit off topic but but when i started to play red orchestra ( the tank maps in particular) i was suppressed how diff it looks in a real Tank sim. Killing a tank even at 1000 meters is almost impossible in the beginning i strongly suggest you check out this game if you like tank battles.
-
moin
luck at this page.
cu chris3
Page 6 is interesting! :D
-
I knew there was something missing from allied manuals - random drawings of naked women! :lol
-
I knew there was something missing from allied manuals - random drawings of naked women! :lol
:D
-
I knew there was something missing from allied manuals - random drawings of naked women! :lol
Hey! That could be Lusche's grandma. show a little respect. :bolt:
If the charts are to be believed, the Tiger I was in little to no danger from nearly all of it's contemporaries from the frontal aspect.
-
Anyone ever hear of a tank commander that took on a tiger head to head and won? I haven't.
-
Think you guys have locked onto the essential fact, the M4 outclasses the Tiger, and the perk cost of the tiger is way to hi, or the shermans perk cost is way to low.
Why do I keep seeing pictires of shermans with holes in thier turrets on the internet, yet in game absolutly everything bounces off of one? I cant recall the last time i've turreted a sherman.
-
I think a sherman should have to get within 900 yards from the side or behind a tiger (a firefly anyway) to hurt it at all and nothing a sherman does from the front should worry a tiger. A tiger firing at a sherman should kill it from any angle. Thats what tigers DID.
-
I think a sherman should have to get within 900 yards from the side or behind a tiger (a firefly anyway) to hurt it at all and nothing a sherman does from the front should worry a tiger. A tiger firing at a sherman should kill it from any angle. Thats what tigers DID.
Agree 100% Chalenge, but I'll go one further. Some years back I met an old guy who was a corpsman during the Italian campaign. He told me the sh*ttiest job, by far, was recovering bodies from the Sherman's. Although many were killed by Pzkw-IV's and PaK 40's, he said he and the other guys became pretty adept at identifying the ones killed by Tiger's and 88mm anti-tank guns. The carnage was that bad.
Put Shermans in front of Tigers, and unless they're close enough to trade insurance info, it's a one-sided slaughter. Period. :uhoh
-
I think a sherman should have to get within 900 yards from the side or behind a tiger (a firefly anyway) to hurt it at all and nothing a sherman does from the front should worry a tiger.
Even though you use the correct name one time ("Firefly") your post reads as if you you are talking about an ordinary "Sherman" - Which a Firefly is not, particularly when it comes to it's gun.
The QF 17 could very well penetrate a Tiger I's armor from the front:
"Fully developed 17-pdrs were placed into production in 1943 and were first used during the Italian Campaign. The 17 pounder was able to penetrate some 140 mm of armour at 500 metres and 131 mm at 1,000 m using standard APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition at a 30 degree angle. When firing the more rare APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) ammunition, the 17 pounder could penetrate some 209 mm of armour at 500 m and 192 mm at 1,000 m at a 30 degree angle. 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"
Just for the record, the Tiger I had a frontal armor of 100mm.
-
Even though you use the correct name one time ("Firefly") your post reads as if you you are talking about an ordinary "Sherman" - Which a Firefly is not, particularly when it comes to it's gun.
The QF 17 could very well penetrate a Tiger I's armor from the front:
"Fully developed 17-pdrs were placed into production in 1943 and were first used during the Italian Campaign. The 17 pounder was able to penetrate some 140 mm of armour at 500 metres and 131 mm at 1,000 m using standard APCBC (Armour Piercing, Capped, Ballistic Capped) ammunition at a 30 degree angle. When firing the more rare APDS (Armour Piercing, Discarding Sabot) ammunition, the 17 pounder could penetrate some 209 mm of armour at 500 m and 192 mm at 1,000 m at a 30 degree angle. 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"
Just for the record, the Tiger I had a frontal armor of 100mm.
Good info Lusche :aok
Just to add to Lusche's point, the 17-pdr (with both full bore & sabot rounds) was still lethal even against the Tiger's mantlet (120mm) beyond 1000 yds. But don't let the Firefly's uber gun cloud the fact that both it and the standard M4 were still far more lightly armored than the Tiger. A Firefly hit on a Tiger could kill it. A Tiger hit on a Firefly would almost surely devastate it. The 17-pdr may be krytonite, but you could get squashed trying to use it.
Just came across this. Kind of interesting:
http://www.lonesentry.com/tigerflorence/index.html
-
i dont get this at all, altho I dont gv much i generally take a M4 and none of this represents what ive seen. m4 has a great gun for sure but armour wise i dont think its that strong. the key to the m4 is that it can kill before it gets hit, the gun is good for 1 shots from range, reloads ok and traverse is great. it can shrug off a few panz rnds from 2kish but the tiger gun is just deadly. the k/ds reflect this too.
-
i dont get this at all, altho I dont gv much i generally take a M4 and none of this represents what ive seen. m4 has a great gun for sure but armour wise i dont think its that strong. the key to the m4 is that it can kill before it gets hit, the gun is good for 1 shots from range, reloads ok and traverse is great. it can shrug off a few panz rnds from 2kish but the tiger gun is just deadly. the k/ds reflect this too.
This tour the Firefly has killed the Tiger 575 times. The Tiger has killed the Firefly 601 times. That's with the Tiger being mostly used for defense, i.e. set up in a good position, waiting to ambush.
-
This tour the Firefly has killed the Tiger 575 times. The Tiger has killed the Firefly 601 times. That's with the Tiger being mostly used for defense, i.e. set up in a good position, waiting to ambush.
I believe this data illustrates the problem perfectly. Even if the two guns were equal (which IMO they're not), the thicker armor of the Tiger should shift the numbers far more in the Tiger's favor than the data indicates. It appears that the M4, as modeled, is artificially tougher than it should be.
-
This tour the Firefly has killed the Tiger 575 times. The Tiger has killed the Firefly 601 times. That's with the Tiger being mostly used for defense, i.e. set up in a good position, waiting to ambush.
We all realize that default paint scheme as contrasted with the colors of the MA terrains is a more important factor in the GV game than armor or guns, right?
-
I'm not sure if it contributes more, but it certainly is an important factor. Good point.
Every tank should have a default green paint scheme.
-
I'm not sure if it contributes more, but it certainly is an important factor. Good point.
Every tank should have a default green paint scheme.
Tiger vs. M4, I'm pretty sure that IS the difference holding the Tiger back. Both tanks, first sight, first shot, first kill *usually*. The Tiger's armor must be what lets it hold on to a *narrow* positive edge.
-
If you take the pros and cons of each tank they are almost a wash. I still think the armor on the FireFly (Sherman body) is over-modeled. The turret is very hard to take out unless hit from the side. It either kill the FireFly or nothing...rarely is it a damage shot. Seems like when ever I shoot a FireFly from the front it bounces off no matter the distance, angle, or spot.
Armor = Tiger
Camo = FireFly
Gun = washout
Angle you can aim gun = FireFly
Speed = washout
Turret speed = FireFly
hhmmm Maybe the FireFly is a better tank overall
-
I agree that HTC couldn't have done a better job of blending the M4 into the terrain (short of replacing the pintle gun graphic with that of a friggin' tree), but I still feel the M4 is artificially tough. I've seen too many rounds bounce off. If nearly all the historical accounts are to be believed, a kid with a well-designed spud gun could kill a Sherman.
-
Lusche I may be off concerning the Firefly but I see the M-4 kill Tigers from any angle and any distance and the Tiger cannot do that to an M-4 everytime and I think it should. The guys that used them even said that a Tiger from any angle shoots them the die to one hit yet in the game my first shot on a Firefly is usually bounced off. It also seems like a Tiger can have elevation on a Firefly and still get bounced rounds but the Firefly can one shot a Tiger from below and at any distance. Its really irritating now with the sound glitch that sounds like a bounced round hitting the ground but then your turret is out.
-
This may cause the long range shooter cheering section to blush but here is some data on sight magnification for ww2 tanks
French CharB & S35 tanks had sights with 4 power magnification.
Soviet KV-1 and T-34: sights had 2.5 power magnification.
Sherms: looks like they had only 1.44X
Tiger 1 Articulated telescopic sight model TZF-9: 2.5X
PZ III/IV TZF-5 by Leitz optics: 2.5X
PZ Late models, some had TZF-12a variable magnification sights: 2.5/5X
Late model M10 tank killer had 6X sight.
much of the above came from airlandseacraft.com
As you can see these were not exactly laser sights. Range estimation was more or less made by the commander with range finding binocs and a sense of range provided by experience.
If you could round up an old .22 scope with 2.5X mag and then sight in some SUV's 1/1/2 miles away it gives you an approximation of the sight picture of the 2.5X sights. The cross hairs obscure most of the target. These sights were not set up for killing targets at extreme ranges. Since I doubt that the coding for range, velocity, damage etc can take in all the variables why not just limit damage to within 1000 meters (screams of rage in background). Players might have to use a little more strategy to get kills, rather than set back at mucho killometers in a Tiger and up their score.
-
I see the M-4 kill Tigers from any angle and any distance and the Tiger cannot do that to an M-4 everytime and I think it should.
have u tried this offline? I spent some time a while back trying the M4 short range against all the tanks on the field to find the best places to kill em on the level and close. theres plenty of places to hit a tiger, especially offset which wont get a 1 shot kill at 1000yds.
-
Anybody noticed the difference between Firefly and other tanks in FOV of gunsight?
-C+
-
Anybody noticed the difference between Firefly and other tanks in FOV of gunsight?
-C+
I figured it was just a wider reticule.
-
If you take the pros and cons of each tank they are almost a wash. I still think the armor on the FireFly (Sherman body) is over-modeled. The turret is very hard to take out unless hit from the side. It either kill the FireFly or nothing...rarely is it a damage shot. Seems like when ever I shoot a FireFly from the front it bounces off no matter the distance, angle, or spot.
Armor = Tiger
Camo = FireFly
Gun = washout
Angle you can aim gun = FireFly
Speed = washout
Turret speed = FireFly
hhmmm Maybe the FireFly is a better tank overall
It should be better at all ranges that the firefly's gun can penetrate the Tiger's thickest point of armor with one shot, outside of those ranges the Tiger should always have the advantage. Turret traverse speed is not as important at range as it is in close quarter fighting. You have to remember that the Tiger was developed to fight the Russians on Russian expansive soil and to engage tanks at safe range, nit to slug it out at close quarters.
-
It should be better at all ranges that the firefly's gun can penetrate the Tiger's thickest point of armor with one shot, outside of those ranges the Tiger should always have the advantage. Turret traverse speed is not as important at range as it is in close quarter fighting. You have to remember that the Tiger was developed to fight the Russians on Russian expansive soil and to engage tanks at safe range, nit to slug it out at close quarters.
But as in the description from the OP, there is no way in real life that a Firefly could score a one shot kill against a Tiger at 4700 yards. Even with using APCBC APDPS rounds, the 17 pounder on the Firefly would not have sufficient energy to score a one shot kill even at a 30 degree angle. Even at ranges beyond 2000 yards, I think the 17 pounder would be very hard pressed to score a one shot kill against a Tiger.
ack-ack
-
I think this boils down to the way the modeling on the shermans turret armor is portrayed. Now barring an odd angle shot, flank shot, or rear shot at range the Tiger should dominate the field. As other posters have said I have gone out and tried the tiger in the TA to take notes on range and such when shooting at a sherman. I will say that out of 100 times I aimed at the turret a total of 47 rounds bouned of harmlessly the other 53 either killed the sherman or it was a disabling shot. Now that is almost 50% ineffective shot on turret but due to the range I was at I cannot for 100% accuracy say what the cause of the high round bouncing???? In my opinion I think the turret armor is not what it should be when compared to historical data. Now I know it takes a lot to code this and this may be the reason but I think that HTC should look at it. I have also done sherman agaisnt tiger range testing and out of 100 rounds that hit the turret of the tiger 37 bounced off and the remaining 63 where kill or disabling shots. Not bad when the range I was at for this test was 2500 meters. I did learn alot on how to engage either tank but in this game I doubt I will be presented these opportunites very often.
BigKev
-
I believe this data illustrates the problem perfectly. Even if the two guns were equal (which IMO they're not), the thicker armor of the Tiger should shift the numbers far more in the Tiger's favor than the data indicates. It appears that the M4, as modeled, is artificially tougher than it should be.
Not really. If it was one m4 for every one tiger mabye it would show up in game......
Game play changes the numbers from what you would see in RL
1: Every one guns for the tiger when they see one.
2: Not as many tigers taken outof the hanger per tour as shermans....
3: Still tigers are poorley used from what ive seen.
My point is their may be an issue with the flys armor. but for the most part players waste tigers.
<S>
-
Im not complaining mind you just stating I dont think its right. That said I really CANT complain because last month I was 92:1 (not everyone uses them poorly) in the tiger but it was a Firefly that got me at 1.6k to a simultaneous kill in the frontal armor that I do not believe he should be able to penetrate at that range.
-
3: Still tigers are poorley used from what ive seen.
The general lack of situations in Aces High in which a Tiger can be used to its fullest contribute to this. Not saying there are none, but if Aces High were the real world, the Tiger would never have been designed.
-
Ah have a long way to go comparing with a competing mmorg in the tank war. Otoh airwar sucks bad in ww2online compared with AH2.
-
Yes, but I'd say our tank battles are much better than their air war. :)
-
But as in the description from the OP, there is no way in real life that a Firefly could score a one shot kill against a Tiger at 4700 yards. Even with using APCBC APDPS rounds, the 17 pounder on the Firefly would not have sufficient energy to score a one shot kill even at a 30 degree angle. Even at ranges beyond 2000 yards, I think the 17 pounder would be very hard pressed to score a one shot kill against a Tiger.
ack-ack
I agree with what you said I was refering to te comparison in the game. The firefly seems to have much tougher armor then it should in real life and the Tiger's seems to not be as effective as it should. Also the guns seem to favor the Firefly. There should be no way the Firefly should be able to swap blows with a Tiger at ranges greater then 4000 yards and depending on the shot angle even less .