Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: stephen on February 15, 2010, 06:04:49 PM
-
Far from a positive post, this line-O-whine has to do with the M4 Firefly's seemingly PERFECT camo, one shot kill ability, and VERY strong frontal/turret armor.
Every other tank in the game makes a trade off one way or the other, be it armor for speed, firepower for mobility etc etc...
No other tank blends in so well with the back ground, and I find it hard to believe that american tanks where the the only vehicles to be almost invisible against a back drop of trees.
The basic color of Mk 4's and Tigers is yellow..., in a game that's entire range of color is green, greener, and greenest, they stand out like sore thumbs, it just doesnt make sense :headscratch:.
The T-3476 is green, but is easily picked out because it's so light compared to the back ground, the same for M3's, M8's etc.
In the history of warfare I cant emagine why no country has made a tank of a similiar color, with the entire vehicles armor comprised of whatever is protecting the Fireflys turret..., I still cant wrap my head around the fact that the turret is made of a steel that is WHOLY IMPENITRABLE by any tank in the game, including the vaunted Tiger, at ANY range.
I've put an 88m round into the flat side of a Sherman, under 200 yards, only to watch horrified as he swung his turret around and punched a hole through my Tigers frontal armor and sent me cursing back to the tower...
This tank is Uber, and its performance (outside of the guns effectivness) seems to be overmodeld... I suspect the majority of players sit mute because after all, it is an american tank (though with a British gun).
The basic color should be changed, the guns speed of traverse should be slowed ( theres twenty feet of barel in a turret designd for a short 75!) and the frontal armor (which even a Mk4 panzer has trouble getting through under 1000yds) should be scaled back. At the very least the perk cost should go up appreciably, a standerd of 20 perks and no less seems fair considering that in base deffence, the vehicle cant be touched.
This IS NOT a vehicle that was seen in anything near the numbers this game reflects, Its under perked, over modeld, and over used.
No one bothers with Tigers anymore....hell, why take a Tiger?
The introduction of this tank without the prior egsistance of its 75mm brother seems unfair considering the order in which the T-34's where introduced...
Honestly, does anyone in a GV fear anything more than A Firefly these days?
Another point i'd like to make...
Do you mean to tell me that an 88mm round would be STOPPED by the spindly limbs on a tree?! perhaps it would be slightly deflected by the trunk, but by a couple friggin leaves!>?
Its nuts, and it allows guys to sit under what ammounts to a bush, at 3000yds firing away with no hope of return fire affecting them AT ALL, because our rounds are plunging at that range.
Perhaps the addition of a code that makes rounds go slightly wild after passing through tree limbs would be appropriate?
I realize that the ground game is considerd secondary by the community, but common..., some of this stuff is just wacked out.
Thanks for the hours of enjoyment, but there is allways room for improvment, <S> all :aok
-
I tend to agree with you.
-
The Tiger and the M4 each have their own merits, but I will agree that the perk disparity between the two is far too great. Honestly I think they should both be 20 or 25 perks baseline, or at the most the Tiger 5 perks more than the M4.
And I would like to make a prediction in case the perk values ever got adjusted as such.. If the perks are raised considerably on the M4 it won't be long before we start seeing threads about how the T34/85 is underperked.
-
I think that you might be correct, but that the 85's traverse is VERY touchy, making for a hard shot because the turret speed is so fast, and the fact the the T-3485's turret is capable of being knocked out by almost any AP round in the game 1st shot, thanx for posting.
-
And I would like to make a prediction in case the perk values ever got adjusted as such.. If the perks are raised considerably on the M4 it won't be long before we start seeing threads about how the T34/85 is underperked.
True on the T34/85 in regards to perk value. I just wish the Sheman armour modeling was on the T34/85 it just seems very easy to take out a T34/85 with just about anything. Not so with the Firefly.
-
The only thing that keeps the crown on the Tiger over the M4 is its ability to OWN a base with both the vh and ords down. M4 is still very bad against Il2's and B25h's where as the Tiger is not Invincible...but Very hard to kill/damage with just bullets.
-
I just put two rounds into a Shermans sponson from a t3476, I was at his 9 oclock, and he wasnt damaged...
As I recall the ammo was kept in the sponson, just forward of the turret...
Seriously, now its just getting silly.
Why did the British call them ronsens again?
-
The M4 Firefly, a perfect tank... to bomb. :devil
-
I just put two rounds into a Shermans sponson from a t3476, I was at his 9 oclock, and he wasnt damaged...
As I recall the ammo was kept in the sponson, just forward of the turret...
Seriously, now its just getting silly.
Why did the British call them ronsens again?
Sponson? :huh
BTW, the front armor of a Sherman is thicker than the T-34s, and the front of the turret much thicker than the Panzer's. Methinks your problem with the Sherman is that you are basing your expectations on reputation rather than stats.
BTW - I've also put Tiger rounds into the sides of Panzers and done squat only to have them kill me before I could get the second shot off. There are also plenty of anectotes of M-3s and M-8s surviving more than one would think possible. Shot placement and (at times a seemingly inordinate amount of) luck are involved killing vehicles in the game, and the Shermans are not the only ones to "benefit" from this at times.
-
I think that you might be correct, but that the 85's traverse is VERY touchy, making for a hard shot because the turret speed is so fast, and the fact the the T-3485's turret is capable of being knocked out by almost any AP round in the game 1st shot, thanx for posting.
Stick scaling is your friend.
-
I've put an 88mm round into the side of an M8 at point blank range, and it didn't do a thing to him (I was dead 9 to him and I hit him just below and behind his turret). He on the other hand, managed to turret my Tiger right after and later track it (with a little help from another M8), leaving me there to just sit n take hits till he and his buddy finally destroyed me. I was hoping someone would spawn n help me which is why I didn't just end sortie (one of them would've probably gotten the kill anyways), but it wasn't meant to be. :cry
I have one shot Firefly's with a Panzer at a range of about 1k. :aok It's pretty satisfying to see the turret on a Sherman fly high into the air after a hit. :devil Only a couple of them were frontal, but most were to the flank, just below the turret. If you are wondering, we were taking them out as they spawned, while we were trying to take their Vbase. I eventually paid the price for ignoring a Sherman, trying to take out a T-34 that managed to slip through. The base fell very shortly after though. :x
Guys, as you are all aware, trees are the ULTIMATE killer in AH. Nothing can stop the Tree! Behold the power of Tree...for it WILL bring about your downfall in one way or another. Always remember, the Tree merely awaits the day you will make your mistake, then it will reach out and grab you! :x "Nom, nom, nom..."
-
E25....., wiki M4 sponson. :aok
-
the GV portion of the game is porked in many ways.
as a dedicated GVer, I have a substantial list that I'm sure HTC is aware of by now if they read the forums.
just gotta play the game around the oddities.
-
E25....., wiki M4 sponson. :aok
Sorry, this is what I thought of when you said sponson.
(http://www.usarmymodels.com/AFV%20PHOTOS/M3%20Lee,%20Grant/Sadler/75mm%20sponson%20gun.jpg)
-
Sponson....,generaly referd to as the area above the track, and on the side of a tank.
The sponson was considerd a week point on the Shermans, and recieved additional armor protection in the form of welded steel plates ,in an attempt to better protect the ammunition storage within the hull.
Shermans where generaly considerd week in thier frontal armor, and thought to be at thier worst when fired upon from the sides, though the game doesnt model that particular weekness, it did egsist..., and was taken advantage of by german anit-tank crews, and tank gunners...
There egsists a gap in the realism of damage when the german rides are compared to the american contemporary's.
Most people attribute the American tanks failings to hype, even though records where kept in the Germany much as in the United States regarding the loss of individual tanks.
The simple truth is that the M4 was pierced MUCH more easily through the side(resulting in the loss of the vehicle through crew casualty's, and ammunition explosion) and at slighter angles of penetration than the German tanks in service at that time.
I have been completly unable to find a recorded instance of a firefly penetrating the frontal armor of a TIGER ANYWHERE on the internet, within 3000yds of the offending Tiger, and I doubt it was anything more than on a rare occasion when it occured, though even the mantlet seems able to be pierced at ANY range by a Sherman.
Please prove me wrong... Later ground pounders<S> :aok
-
The 17 pounder has equal or better armor penetration compared to the Tiger. The Panther gun, the 88 and the 17 pounder are basically in the same park, - elite.
But for armour, the Firefly is vulnerable. I die in it, and I kill them too, so I seem not to suffer from that perfection problem...
-
the guns speed of traverse should be slowed
what is AHs firefly traverse in deg/sec? what was RL fireflys traverse in deg/sec? do you have any real basis for thinking it should be slowed?
AH firefly's frontal armour is better than the sides, as IRL.
As for skins, I agree, although theres no need to change the firefly. the default skin for all tanks should be suitable for the terrains we use, ie. as close as possible to each other.
the biggest problem with GVing is the terrain - inpenetrable leaves and the bug where a small shrub not only stops a 60 tonne tiger but will flip it over on its back. ridiculous. I like GVs but dont really bother often because the terrain problems mean you just cant take it seriously.
-
The 17 pounder has equal or better armor penetration compared to the Tiger. The Panther gun, the 88 and the 17 pounder are basically in the same park, - elite.
But for armour, the Firefly is vulnerable. I die in it, and I kill them too, so I seem not to suffer from that perfection problem...
Tiger ain't far off. Before the Sherman the Tiger was feared in the old TT...now it's a hanger queen. No one ups one since it's so easily killed and a complete....COMPLETE waste of perks.
-
M4 is still very bad against Il2's and B25h's where as the Tiger is not Invincible...but Very hard to kill/damage with just bullets.
Tiger is just as vulnerable to the B-25H as the Firefly is. It is quite easy to take out a Tiger in a single shot with the 75mm cannon, just need to know where to place the shot.
ack-ack
-
In response to this I agree in part but only because I wonder what round is modeled in the game that the Sherman fires as well as the turret armor? The firefly was simply an upgunned standard M4. That siad the only difference was the turret armor due to the change in turret design to house the 17lb gun. If I remember correctly I think the max armor on the turret was 89mm and that was on the mantlet so on the turret sides is was thinner. So with that said an 88mm shell should be able to penetrate the hull of a sherman well out to 2000 plus meters and penetrate the turret at rnage sof around 1500m. In the game it does seem as if the sherman turret is super thick. Of course I know a lot of variables make for a kill shot but at times it does seem much more than historical performance showed. Now for the 17lb gun on it! The 17lb gun fired two types of AP rounds. It fired either armor piercing ballistic capped (APCBC) or a sabot type shot. However, the sabot round was not available in large numbers. So assuming the gun fires the APCBC round it should penetrate around 131mm of armour at 1000m. In the game I have factored in the decrease in penetration for more distance to target and sat at range accordingly and still been killed by the firefly. Example: The 17lb gun could penetrate according to most data about 140mm of armor at 457m and around 131 at 914m. So in my last gun fight in a tiger vs. an M4 I sat at 2200m or so from the M4 and still had my turret taken out. I sat with frontal armor facing the target. So with the above stats for calculated that the max penetration should have been no more than 113mm if I assumed a drop of 9mm of penetration for 500m of range increase. The front turret armor of the tiger is 120mm thick. So I shold be able to take multiple hit before a kill shot. In my case one shot took me out. So naturally I must assume that the AP round used is the Sabot ytpe round which has increased penetration??? Now at 2200m the tiger should be able to penetrate anywhere from 110mm to 83mm of armor. I hit the M4 in the turret and the front hull with solid shots and nothing. So with that said I am seeing that the tiger cannot penetrate even 51mm or front hull armor?????? So we can also address perks based on production numbers in WWII around 2000 fireflys were produced and around 1400 tigers produced. So if we combine the production numbers, firepower of the 17lb gun with the sabot round, and the uber armor we see in the game then a perk of around 20 would be fair. Please feel free to chop. I know there are a lot of opinions but this is what I see and think is why we have the disparity.
BigKev
-
In response to this I agree in part but only because I wonder what round is modeled in the game that the Sherman fires as well as the turret armor? The firefly was simply an upgunned standard M4. That siad the only difference was the turret armor due to the change in turret design to house the 17lb gun. If I remember correctly I think the max armor on the turret was 89mm and that was on the mantlet so on the turret sides is was thinner. So with that said an 88mm shell should be able to penetrate the hull of a sherman well out to 2000 plus meters and penetrate the turret at rnage sof around 1500m. In the game it does seem as if the sherman turret is super thick. Of course I know a lot of variables make for a kill shot but at times it does seem much more than historical performance showed. Now for the 17lb gun on it! The 17lb gun fired two types of AP rounds. It fired either armor piercing ballistic capped (APCBC) or a sabot type shot. However, the sabot round was not available in large numbers. So assuming the gun fires the APCBC round it should penetrate around 131mm of armour at 1000m. In the game I have factored in the decrease in penetration for more distance to target and sat at range accordingly and still been killed by the firefly. Example: The 17lb gun could penetrate according to most data about 140mm of armor at 457m and around 131 at 914m. So in my last gun fight in a tiger vs. an M4 I sat at 2200m or so from the M4 and still had my turret taken out. I sat with frontal armor facing the target. So with the above stats for calculated that the max penetration should have been no more than 113mm if I assumed a drop of 9mm of penetration for 500m of range increase. The front turret armor of the tiger is 120mm thick. So I shold be able to take multiple hit before a kill shot. In my case one shot took me out. So naturally I must assume that the AP round used is the Sabot ytpe round which has increased penetration??? Now at 2200m the tiger should be able to penetrate anywhere from 110mm to 83mm of armor. I hit the M4 in the turret and the front hull with solid shots and nothing. So with that said I am seeing that the tiger cannot penetrate even 51mm or front hull armor?????? So we can also address perks based on production numbers in WWII around 2000 fireflys were produced and around 1400 tigers produced. So if we combine the production numbers, firepower of the 17lb gun with the sabot round, and the uber armor we see in the game then a perk of around 20 would be fair. Please feel free to chop. I know there are a lot of opinions but this is what I see and think is why we have the disparity.
BigKev
Awhile back moot posted about the Firefly and its ability to score kills beyond 3000+ yards. In that thread there is a post that talks about the ranges for the different rounds the Firefly used. In short, no matter what the rounds were, there is no way a Firefly could have scored a one kill shot on a Tiger or any other heavy German tank beyond 2500 yards like it's possible to do in game.
ack-ack
-
I've got to imagine that at the really ridiculous ranges we see kills at in AH the round is arcing in and hitting the top armor. There is probably a "sweet spot" for the Tiger at which the round is coming too flat to penetrate the top armor but doesn't have the velocity left to penetrate the front.
-
I've got to imagine that at the really ridiculous ranges we see kills at in AH the round is arcing in and hitting the top armor. There is probably a "sweet spot" for the Tiger at which the round is coming too flat to penetrate the top armor but doesn't have the velocity left to penetrate the front.
The rounds from the Firefly though wouldn't have sufficient energy enough to score a one kill on a Tiger at some of the ranges we see in game (3000yds+). In moot's thread I was referencing, he posted screenshots from a Firefly kill on a Tiger that was close to 4000 yards, almost double the effective range for either of the rounds the Firefly used. In real life, the rounds wouldn't have sufficient energy to penetrate the armor of a Tiger or any other heavy German tank at that far of a range.
ack-ack
-
In response to this I agree in part but only because I wonder what round is modeled in the game that the Sherman fires as well as the turret armor? The firefly was simply an upgunned standard M4. That siad the only difference was the turret armor due to the change in turret design to house the 17lb gun. If I remember correctly I think the max armor on the turret was 89mm and that was on the mantlet so on the turret sides is was thinner. So with that said an 88mm shell should be able to penetrate the hull of a sherman well out to 2000 plus meters and penetrate the turret at rnage sof around 1500m. In the game it does seem as if the sherman turret is super thick. Of course I know a lot of variables make for a kill shot but at times it does seem much more than historical performance showed. Now for the 17lb gun on it! The 17lb gun fired two types of AP rounds. It fired either armor piercing ballistic capped (APCBC) or a sabot type shot. However, the sabot round was not available in large numbers. So assuming the gun fires the APCBC round it should penetrate around 131mm of armour at 1000m. In the game I have factored in the decrease in penetration for more distance to target and sat at range accordingly and still been killed by the firefly. Example: The 17lb gun could penetrate according to most data about 140mm of armor at 457m and around 131 at 914m. So in my last gun fight in a tiger vs. an M4 I sat at 2200m or so from the M4 and still had my turret taken out. I sat with frontal armor facing the target. So with the above stats for calculated that the max penetration should have been no more than 113mm if I assumed a drop of 9mm of penetration for 500m of range increase. The front turret armor of the tiger is 120mm thick. So I shold be able to take multiple hit before a kill shot. In my case one shot took me out. So naturally I must assume that the AP round used is the Sabot ytpe round which has increased penetration??? Now at 2200m the tiger should be able to penetrate anywhere from 110mm to 83mm of armor. I hit the M4 in the turret and the front hull with solid shots and nothing. So with that said I am seeing that the tiger cannot penetrate even 51mm or front hull armor?????? So we can also address perks based on production numbers in WWII around 2000 fireflys were produced and around 1400 tigers produced. So if we combine the production numbers, firepower of the 17lb gun with the sabot round, and the uber armor we see in the game then a perk of around 20 would be fair. Please feel free to chop. I know there are a lot of opinions but this is what I see and think is why we have the disparity.
BigKev
cant be bothered to read that. pls use paragraphs :aok
-
I have to make a correction, I didnt mean "within" 3000yds, I meant to say "Outside" of 3000yds.
I can deal with the lethality of the gun..., its a challenge to try and make the 1st few shots without the apposing M4 seeing me, what gets my goat is watching my 1st 2 rounds ping harmlessly off of the front of a Sherman, or seeing a damage splash on its SIDE where the ammo was housed, and having his first round blow me up.
Silly.
Perhaps crew casualtys should be modeld as well?
-
Speaking of the Firefly.....there is one at the entrance of my Brigade at Ft.Drum, its got a lighter skin on it :noid
-
Speaking of the Firefly.....there is one at the entrance of my Brigade at Ft.Drum, its got a lighter skin on it :noid
Got a pick or link for it?
-
i put over 40 rounds into a Sherman tonight at about 3500 distance, then another 12 into it at 2200 before it finally blew up i was in my tiger,,,, he took out my turret at 3500 in a panzer in one shot i had bounced at least 20 shots off him before that happened!
i don't mind the super Sherman tho, i just think the tiger costs to much and is too easily killed by the Sherman, the other thing i wish we had was a more friendly tank terrain some holes to drive into, i know we cant "dig" in but we need to be able to. next problem i have found, and only recently is the ability to see thru stuff, someone i fought not long ago seemed to be able to see me no matter where i spawned and was shooting at me thru buildings almost immediately, i filmed it but have not sent it in yet, i figure it may be a glitch that will be fixed in the new update and no need to fix it before then, but i have been tanking a long time and this was just ridiculous, i was shot at thru barns and trees and houses, the rounds created holes all around me but did not kill me till i moved up some, on at least two occasions i was hidden behind buildings when i spawned yet was getting shot at immediately .range was around 1500 to 2500 for these shots . i can see tanks moving on the other side of an object if they and i are within 500 but that's about it so i am not sure how someone else could see me behind a building at 2000 or so.
-
I talked with the gentleman that we had this discussion about before. He said. He can see Thru trees buildings even Thru mountains sometimes. He said he can't shoot thru them , but he can see the tank because it always shows up. He says its his computer.
I have been asking around. It seems if you turn town your graphics and detail. and YOu must hit ground vis its like shift or cntl f4 you can see thru most trees.
It seems more prevalent now than it was before ..to counter I just drive out and range them from past 3.2. their are only an hand full of gvers in the game that can effectively trade shots past that distance.
<S>
-
Why does the Tiger I have a positive K/D ratio against the Firefly if it is as indestructible as you all claim?
-
Add to the list the very broad view through the gunsight, where as in other tanks the view is restricted. ;)
-C+
-
Why does the Tiger I have a positive K/D ratio against the Firefly if it is as indestructible as you all claim?
Karnak, I am certainly not a GVer, but I think the K/D ratio could easily be explained by how the tanks are used and a general understanding that the defender (often laying in wait for anyone to come along) has the advantage in the ground game.
The is exacerbated by the fact that the Tiger is quite expensive, perk-wise, which would lead to more cautious use and much more use on defense. The Sherman Firefly, on the other hand, is indisputably much better than the Panzer IV and not terribly expensive and so would see a lot more use on offense when someone wanted the best tank for their buck.
In the above scenario, you may well see a Tiger ambush and kill 2 or 3 Fireflies and then be taken down, where in the same situation he would have killed 10 or 15 Panzer IVs and T-34s and then rolled blithely back to base.
Just a thought.
-
I don't get these threads, whining about minor details of tanks in what is primarily an air combat sim?
two words:
Aces *HIGH*
-
Well, after all, the Firefly really has FIREPOWER! The 17 pdr was one of the best anti-armor weapons of WW2.
-
I don't get these threads, whining about minor details of tanks in what is primarily an air combat sim?
two words:
Aces *HIGH*
a few words for you, from HTC front page.
Welcome to the Internets Premier WWII Combat Experience.
Engage in Air Land and Sea combat.
-
I don't get these threads, whining about minor details of tanks in what is primarily an air combat sim?
GV's make up 30% of all kills & deaths in AH. Doesn't look "minor" to me.
-
Why does the Tiger I have a positive K/D ratio against the Firefly if it is as indestructible as you all claim?
I (COLLEEN) have been known to tank, and tank in a Tiger, IMO 90% of all tigers users do not fire at another tank without a 3,000m+ range or they are siting on concrete and can tower out when an M4 1shots there turret and smokes it from up and further than 3,000m from any direction.
Anyone who does not do this and "takes the tiger out on an offencive" rarely come back home alive and that is IMO 99% of all tiger deaths.
The other 1% of tiger deaths is the moron who takes one out from a camped hanger expecting NOT to get 1 shot killed like a total noob.
The original post is spot on IMO as a tanker. I'd like to think that under this current question my opinion it is valued.
The Tiger has vary little "fear factor" anymore since the M4 has come.
In less than one month befor i pretty much gave up tanking(2or3 months ago), I lost over 5,000 GV perks by taking the Tiger out on every GV run that ENY would allow.
On every mission, and i rarely came home alive even after getting a +5 or so K/D every run. By the end of one 30day month i had lost all 5,000perks. Had I or anyone else done that in the M4 the K/D would be the same or better and there perk loss would be 0.
The M4 is the king of aces' high ground and will be until all GV defult colors are the same, and the M4 damage model is corrected. As it is now the entire turret seems to be 5000m thick in the front, and the "sloped" armor of the T-34 has rubbed off on the M4, I have bounced off more Tiger 88mm rounds off M4's than i have off T34's and as a squad m8 would say in a southern drawl "that's just wroooooong man"
It is possable someone has proof that an 88mm has bounce off an M4 at 200m or less (in real life)but i doubt it.
+1 on the post
+1 on introducing the
KING TIGER[/size][/size][/b]
-
The Firefly is simply the best gun to kill a Tiger with. Apart from (possibly) another Tiger. And it's cheaper. And the world of AH II is not as the real battles in WWII, where the Tigers were both more frequent than Fireflies, as well as being used as an ambush weapon, - that means defensive...
-
Karnak, I am certainly not a GVer, but I think the K/D ratio could easily be explained by how the tanks are used and a general understanding that the defender (often laying in wait for anyone to come along) has the advantage in the ground game.
The is exacerbated by the fact that the Tiger is quite expensive, perk-wise, which would lead to more cautious use and much more use on defense. The Sherman Firefly, on the other hand, is indisputably much better than the Panzer IV and not terribly expensive and so would see a lot more use on offense when someone wanted the best tank for their buck.
In the above scenario, you may well see a Tiger ambush and kill 2 or 3 Fireflies and then be taken down, where in the same situation he would have killed 10 or 15 Panzer IVs and T-34s and then rolled blithely back to base.
Just a thought.
Oh, I agree the Firefly is too cheap in relation to the Tiger I. I am just curious why the threads claim it is also more durable as that certainly wasn't my experience.
-
Oh, I agree the Firefly is too cheap in relation to the Tiger I. I am just curious why the threads claim it is also more durable as that certainly wasn't my experience.
In my experience, it's the only tank that does really benefit from a hull-down position, for it's turret is very hard to destroy. In comparison, the Tiger Turret is pretty weak from the front (and I'm not even talking about the T34/85 paper turret)...
And from the viewpoint of a Hurri D pilot, the Sherman is the 2nd most difficult tank to kill , after the T-34/76
-
In my experience, it's the only tank that does really benefit from a hull-down position, for it's turret is very hard to destroy. In comparison, the Tiger Turret is pretty weak from the front (and I'm not even talking about the T34/85 paper turret)...
And from the viewpoint of a Hurri D pilot, the Sherman is the 2nd most difficult tank to kill , after the T-34/76
I agree completly
-
WOOT? I always have the worst problem with them Tigers.
-
Thank you for the input fellas...
With the addition of the ww1 arena, I assume that any fixes are far off, but im glad to see that we are able to keep certain failings visible, and current, so that they might be addressd in the near future.
<S> :aok
-
I think the M4 should be perked more than it is as historically about 2000 were built compared to the 1500 or so tigers. So the M4 is on average 4-6 perks while the tiger is 20-30 with only a 500 vehicle production difference?? As far as anothe rposted stated about the M4 beign the second hardest tank to take out. I have found a weakness with the M4 when you use the B25 against it but it is a hard shot to make and most of the time I screw it up.
BigKev
-
I think the M4 should be perked more than it is as historically about 2000 were built compared to the 1500 or so tigers. So the M4 is on average 4-6 perks while the tiger is 20-30 with only a 500 vehicle production difference?? As far as anothe rposted stated about the M4 beign the second hardest tank to take out. I have found a weakness with the M4 when you use the B25 against it but it is a hard shot to make and most of the time I screw it up.
BigKev
Perking or not perking an ride in AH is not dependent on numbers produced. In fact, I believe the only ride that was ever perked only due to small production numbers was the Ta-152, and it is no longer perked because it's performance simply doesn't warrant it.
-
i dont play GV in this game , to me its just not good enough compared with its competition.
Otoh the competitor sucks in flying department ...
I want more hardcore , but thats just me, and I dont want to deny them finding its fun to GV in here.
And yes, I have long IRL experience from tanks.
-
Sherman costs to much in relation to the Tiger.
-
Sherman costs to much in relation to the Tiger.
You must be kidding
-
You must be kidding
Crap!!! I reversed that and cant edit it. :o :o My bad, I meant the tiger costs too much in relation to the Sherman. M4 perk cost should increase.
Ok im gonna shut up now. :o
-
I hate to see this thread die..., but die it must, <S> and thank you for the help.
Hopefuly our voices will not only be heard, but acted upon :pray
-
I doubt it. (m4 is Way over modeled or under perked.)
-
They need to fix the gunsight first, it's off, there's a thread on here somewhere.
-
Funny thing...., there is more than enough outcry concerning the M4's un-historical virtues to warrant a second look at its modeling within the confines of this game, though seemingly nothing is being done about it, and no thought has been given to bringing its historical failings to reality...
Perhaps starting another thread isnt the answer...?
When might we expect the Sherman to act as a Sherman should under the bombardment of the vaunted Tiger? :confused:
Or at the very least, blow up whenever an 88mm hits its sponson, where the ammunition is stored?
-
Why is the T-34/85's turret so soft? The armor levels listed for it don't stand out as being particularly weak as I recall. Not any worse that the T-34/76, no?
-
M4 is still very bad against Il2's and B25h's where as the Tiger is not Invincible...but Very hard to kill/damage with just bullets.
A B-25H will kill a Tiger just as easily as it will kill a Firefly in one shot. There isn't a tank in this game that can't be killed with one well placed shot from an IL2 or B-25H.
ack-ack
-
Tiger is just as vulnerable to the B-25H as the Firefly is. It is quite easy to take out a Tiger in a single shot with the 75mm cannon, just need to know where to place the shot.
ack-ack
A B-25H will kill a Tiger just as easily as it will kill a Firefly in one shot. There isn't a tank in this game that can't be killed with one well placed shot from an IL2 or B-25H.
ack-ack
Losing his mind... :D Agreed, though. The engine deck of the Tiger is squishy.
-
IMO it all depends on the driver of the vehicle
-
Why is the T-34/85's turret so soft? The armor levels listed for it don't stand out as being particularly weak as I recall. Not any worse that the T-34/76, no?
This is what I'm wondering too. I tried to look up the numbers and did not found any reduction in armor thickness.on any face. Yet the /85 turret is like paper. For me, this is most notably when upping my Hurricane IID against incoming tanks. Taking out a T-34/85 turret is no problem at all, while the /76 is the most difficult tank to kill in a Hurri D by a huge margin.
-
Sponson? :huh
BTW, the front armor of a Sherman is thicker than the T-34s, and the front of the turret much thicker than the Panzer's. Methinks your problem with the Sherman is that you are basing your expectations on reputation rather than stats.
BTW - I've also put Tiger rounds into the sides of Panzers and done squat only to have them kill me before I could get the second shot off. There are also plenty of anectotes of M-3s and M-8s surviving more than one would think possible. Shot placement and (at times a seemingly inordinate amount of) luck are involved killing vehicles in the game, and the Shermans are not the only ones to "benefit" from this at times.
yes this is true... there is actually a full 89mm of armor slapped into the front of the turret... This defends against panzers very well... many people think the Sherman was crappy for poor armor etc... The only reason the 75mm version was poor was due to gasoline burn rate/explosion and not diesel fuel slow burn (aka why tankers called it a death trap), ammo storage placement, and penetration power. this is why it was upgraded to the 76mm. In Africa, the M4 75mm Sherman was evenly matched vs. the early Pnzr IIIs and the Pnzr IVs that have no sheet armor on the sides... (bringing up the fact as to why the Pnzr IV dies so easily when shot on the sides... This armor sheet was to protect against AP rounds forcing them to explode before hitting the actual tank... can someone PLEASE ANSWER WHY!?!?!?)
tiger rounds into the sides of panzers... where exactly? shoot near the engine block or the front. and if you aim for the turret base you will usually kill them instantly... the M3 M8 survival thing i believe is due to the AP rounds shooting FULLY THROUGH an M3/M16 without an explosion... I've actually had more effect shooting HE at these soft targets, ive even killed them by shooting directly next to them and the HE round explodes killing the vehicle. you can even do it to M8s sometimes...
BUT the AP rounds should still be able to shoot through an M8 without pinging off the side slant armor...
The T34/85 turret is actually weak compared to the /76 turret armor in game... and i have not seen any outside info as to why the /85's turret is so easily shot... In fact the entire tank seems weaker than the T34/76 except the gun... :headscratch:
-
Yes, some things need tweaking...See "One Shot Kills" in this section somewhere? Tiger and M4 both can be easily killed even with a panzer and light t-34. Also, there are very few small trees which would deflect the tiger or M-4 course at speed, much less stop them dead, but a 10-20lbs(?) shell traveling near the speed of sound is not going to stop at a bush or deflect enough, from a small limb, to save the tank from repeated hits....and I've been running into these trees painted on impenetrable glass lately. You cannot shoot through it, drive through it, or see objects beyond them accurately. Yes some things need to be tweaked.
-
People asking for penetrable trees fall into the group of people who don't know what they want. You have to give up realism sometimes for playability. If trees and hedges become penetrable, there is no cover at all left on the battlefield from tank rounds or bombs. Strategy would become entirely useless as you could be shot anywhere, anytime and tanks could drive straight through forests unhindered.
The issue with tanks being flipped by trees is a physics engine/collision detection problem. Collision checks are run at a less-than-realtime rate to reduce CPU load. A vehicle traveling fast enough to get inside an object between checks will have "buried" itself inside it; since objects attempt to impart equal force upon each other (ignoring it on the tree's side since it's unable to move), the force multiplies due to the deep impact and the tank is thrown. There isn't really much that can be done about it.
-
This armor sheet was to protect against AP rounds forcing them to explode before hitting the actual tank... can someone PLEASE ANSWER WHY!?!?!?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_armour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_armour)
I always pack some HE for M3/M16s/Jeeps, APs just go straight through. HE splash is useful to bust M8 tyres at high speeds too, then you can finish em off with AP :aok
OOZ trees and hedges shouldnt provide some kind of bomb/projectile shield protection, they should provide cover. you should be able to shoot through foliage, but not see through it (the opposite of what we have now.) ideally anything less than a tree trunk should be possible to drive/shoot through.
interesting explanation of the tank flipping, surely its solvable though? :headscratch:
-
Far from a positive post, this line-O-whine has to do with the M4 Firefly's seemingly PERFECT camo, one shot kill ability, and VERY strong frontal/turret armor.
Every other tank in the game makes a trade off one way or the other, be it armor for speed, firepower for mobility etc etc...
No other tank blends in so well with the back ground, and I find it hard to believe that american tanks where the the only vehicles to be almost invisible against a back drop of trees.
The basic color of Mk 4's and Tigers is yellow..., in a game that's entire range of color is green, greener, and greenest, they stand out like sore thumbs, it just doesnt make sense :headscratch:.
The color scheme we have for the German armored was very effective for desert warfare but for AH terrains I think they should default to the grey color scheme also used by the Germans. Either that or give us some desert terrains. :aok
-
The only reason the 75mm version was poor was due to gasoline burn rate/explosion and not diesel fuel slow burn (aka why tankers called it a death trap), ammo storage placement, and penetration power.
This is false. Early Sherman's burning easily was due to poor ammunition stowage, and was remedied by further encasing the ammo bins with glycol and water filled casings. After that, the Shermans were no more prone to brew up than any German or Russian tank. BTW, the German tanks all ran on gasoline too.
(bringing up the fact as to why the Pnzr IV dies so easily when shot on the sides... This armor sheet was to protect against AP rounds forcing them to explode before hitting the actual tank... can someone PLEASE ANSWER WHY!?!?!?)
The side sheeting you see is only about 5mm thick. It wasn't much good against a standard large-caliber solid-shot AP round. What it was meant to defeat were small caliber rounds, essentially the Russian AT rifles. They also offered protection against shape-charged / HEAT - type rounds, such as are used in bazookas, although that was more a happy accident than something the Germans were counting on.
-
(bringing up the fact as to why the Pnzr IV dies so easily when shot on the sides... This armor sheet was to protect against AP rounds forcing them to explode before hitting the actual tank... can someone PLEASE ANSWER WHY!?!?!?)
The side sheeting you see is only about 5mm thick. It wasn't much good against a standard large-caliber solid-shot AP round. What it was meant to defeat were small caliber rounds, essentially the Russian AT rifles. They also offered protection against shape-charged / HEAT - type rounds, such as are used in bazookas, although that was more a happy accident than something the Germans were counting on.
The Striker and Abrams of today's military carry the same sort of thing, but in the form of heavy "grating" that detonates projectiles like RPGs before they can damage the main body of the tank. As you can imagine, a 75mm AP round wouldn't be bothered by said grating in the least. :)
-
This is false. Early Sherman's burning easily was due to poor ammunition stowage, and was remedied by further encasing the ammo bins with glycol and water filled casings. After that, the Shermans were no more prone to brew up than any German or Russian tank. BTW, the German tanks all ran on gasoline too.
i did say ammo storage placement but really? i had heard many places that the germans used diesel instead of gas... well my bad then... but it does not take away from the fact that many GV things must be updated...
1: T34/85 armor thickness is too weak...
2: Sherman perk value needs to be increased
3: tank tree flipping
4: M8 slant armor pinging (possibly needing correction?) but may be correct already