Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1carbine on April 20, 2010, 08:49:04 PM
-
In real life how did they compare in turret speed and track speed, armor, and firepower (17 pound gun vs. 75mm gun).
-
Same in almost every respect except the gun. The 17lbr on the Firefly was arguably the best anti-tank gun in the allied arsenal. It's armor penetration capability was better than the Tiger's 88.
In contrast, the 75mm was a compromise weapon for a vehicle whose primary role was seen as supporting infantry, not killing other tanks. (US Army doctrine of the time said special tank destroyer units were to engage the enemy tanks.) Although capable of destroying medium and light armored vehicles, it struggled against the German heavy tanks like the Tiger and Panther.
-
well the first difference, and probably the biggest one, is that the firefly wasnt a dedicated tank, it was a tank-destroyer, meaning it was designed to sneak around and flank enemy tanks, not lead an assault, which is the tank's role. basically the only other major difference is the gun. all the British did with the M4A3 was fit it with their 76.2mm (17 pounder) anti-tank gun. this gun gave the firefly better killing ability at longer ranges.
the sherman's 75mm gun proved ineffective against the German armor, although against the Panzer IV (the model in-game), it faired quite well.
as for the apparent rocket launchers, there were 60 of them, 107mm rockets that will make for extreme town killers :x
but turret speed, engine power, and armor are the same with both the M4A3 and M4A4
-
the sherman's 75mm gun proved ineffective against the German armor, although against the Panzer IV (the model in-game), it faired quite well.
If you count charging 6 shermans in, losing 5 so the last guy could sneak behind the panzer while he was aimed at poor schmuck #5 and shoot it in the engine compartment from behind, sure, then let's say it "fared quite well"....
The 75mm on the sherman won't kill a panzer in a frontal battle. It may not even damage it in a side battle. It will be one step above an M8 and one step below a T34 (without HVAP) in terms of hitting power.
-
If you count charging 6 shermans in, losing 5 so the last guy could sneak behind the panzer while he was aimed at poor schmuck #5 and shoot it in the engine compartment from behind, sure, then let's say it "fared quite well"....
The 75mm on the sherman won't kill a panzer in a frontal battle. It may not even damage it in a side battle. It will be one step above an M8 and one step below a T34 (without HVAP) in terms of hitting power.
i must've read the site wrong then :o
its kind of the same relationship between the T-34/76 and the T-34/85
-
The 75mm on the sherman won't kill a panzer in a frontal battle. It may not even damage it in a side battle. It will be one step above an M8 and one step below a T34 (without HVAP) in terms of hitting power.
One step below? One site of many that shows the US M3 gun on the Sherman was just as capable as the Russian F-34 gun on the T-34/76.
Appropriate line is the "75mm M3 Tank Gun."
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/usa_guns5.html
Appropriate line is "F-34 and ZiS-5"
http://www.freeweb.hu/gva/weapons/soviet_guns5.html
The Russian tank has the edge with APCR (our HVAP), but with standard AP rounds the guns are nearly identical.
-
well the first difference, and probably the biggest one, is that the firefly wasnt a dedicated tank, it was a tank-destroyer, meaning it was designed to sneak around and flank enemy tanks, not lead an assault, which is the tank's role. basically the only other major difference is the gun. all the British did with the M4A3 was fit it with their 76.2mm (17 pounder) anti-tank gun. this gun gave the firefly better killing ability at longer ranges.
the sherman's 75mm gun proved ineffective against the German armor, although against the Panzer IV (the model in-game), it faired quite well.
as for the apparent rocket launchers, there were 60 of them, 107mm rockets that will make for extreme town killers :x
but turret speed, engine power, and armor are the same with both the M4A3 and M4A4
I'm curious where you got this idea that the Firefly wasn't a dedicated tank? They were mixed into British armored units along with the regular 75mm Shermans. Their numbers were fewer, but their role, the same if not more likely to be out front to deal with the Tigers and Panthers. The Firefly was built on the M4A4 Sherman Hull btw
-
The gun on the t34/76 is the suckage :bolt:
-
As previous posters have noted the gun on the Firefly was far superior to the 75mm on the M4A3. Armor was about the same except for the turret. The turret on the Firefly was a bick thick due to the need to modify the turret a bit to handle the gun. Other than that they were both similar in all other aspects. The big drawback to the 75mm was the penetration ability of the gun. Though I imagine in the game it will get a good following and fair use.
BigKev
-
So from what I've heard so far. Just as fast and tough excluding the turret, and should do just as well as a T/34 with a slower turret speed but with faster reloading. doesn't sound bad if modeled properly :noid
-
If you count charging 6 shermans in, losing 5 so the last guy could sneak behind the panzer while he was aimed at poor schmuck #5 and shoot it in the engine compartment from behind, sure, then let's say it "fared quite well"....
I disagree. I think the m4a3 will be a perfect match for the panzer, and I think you might be thinking of a tiger.
-
Same in almost every respect except the gun. The 17lbr on the Firefly was arguably the best anti-tank gun in the allied arsenal. It's armor penetration capability was better than the Tiger's 88.
In contrast, the 75mm was a compromise weapon for a vehicle whose primary role was seen as supporting infantry, not killing other tanks. (US Army doctrine of the time said special tank destroyer units were to engage the enemy tanks.) Although capable of destroying medium and light armored vehicles, it struggled against the German heavy tanks like the Tiger and Panther.
Ive never read or heard of a German Soldier say that they were afraid of any Allied AT gun...and this is a quote written during the 2nd World War..."The German 88 converted more to Christianity then Peter and Paul combined". 88 was best AT gun of the war and it wasn't even created for that purpose. Case...rested.
-
I disagree. I think the m4a3 will be a perfect match for the panzer, and I think you might be thinking of a tiger.
It will be like a slow T-34/76 with a higher rate of fire. How do you feel in a T-34/76 against the Panzer IV H? Kill/death stats in AH indicate that isn't remotely close to a perfect match.
Ive never read or heard of a German Soldier say that they were afraid of any Allied AT gun...and this is a quote written during the 2nd World War..."The German 88 converted more to Christianity then Peter and Paul combined". 88 was best AT gun of the war and it wasn't even created for that purpose. Case...rested.
Read more. The 17lber on the Firefly made them target #1 for German tankers for a reason.
Also, keep in mind that there isn't simply a "88mm tank gun", but multiple versions. The 17lber on the Firefly and the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 on the Panther are superior to the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger I, but probably inferior to the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 on the Tiger II.
-
In a Panzer IV vs T3476 match up, id take the T34 every time...
Id say that the 76mm on the T3476 is adequate vs the MK IV...., and the armor is above par, and what gives the Russian tank the edge in any long range engagment.
I think the Sherman will probaly fair nearly as well against the MKIV, as its all down to gunnery really.
Low velocity or not, MkIV's are vulnerable in the turret, and they tend to blow up when ANY AP is applied to them.
The old hands will give the pazers a run for thier money..., the Tiger on the other hand is going to be another story, and Firfly vs Sherman just doesnt warent any thought, the VC FIREFLYS are gonna rape A3's wholesale, just like everything else. :aok
-
Historically the firefly was fielded 1 tank per platoon (4 tanks) and utilized in an "over watch" role. It was not in the rotation for lead tank. The Germans were very aware of the Firefly and would often ignore the approaching tanks while they looked for the Firefly. Standing orders were to engage the Firefly 1st which led to the British using fake extenders on the guntube ala "Kelly's Hero's" to confuse the Germans on which tanks were actually firefly's.
-
It will be like a slow T-34/76 with a higher rate of fire. How do you feel in a T-34/76 against the Panzer IV H? Kill/death stats in AH indicate that isn't remotely close to a perfect match.
Read more. The 17lber on the Firefly made them target #1 for German tankers for a reason.
Also, keep in mind that there isn't simply a "88mm tank gun", but multiple versions. The 17lber on the Firefly and the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 on the Panther are superior to the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger I, but probably inferior to the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 on the Tiger II.
Quoted for truth.
-
Noticed today they posted pics of the M4A3 76MM barrel instead of the 75MM. Does this mean 2 M4A3s or options for the M4A3??? :x
-
Bronk want E8!!!
-
Bronk want E8!!!
Man yo uaint kidding the "Easy 8" would be a dream come true for shermans. All we can do is pray!!!!! But hey the 76mm will work just fine.
BigKev
-
If you count charging 6 shermans in, losing 5 so the last guy could sneak behind the panzer while he was aimed at poor schmuck #5 and shoot it in the engine compartment from behind, sure, then let's say it "fared quite well"....
The 75mm on the sherman won't kill a panzer in a frontal battle. It may not even damage it in a side battle. It will be one step above an M8 and one step below a T34 (without HVAP) in terms of hitting power.
I'll just compare the new sherman to an LVTA4 (but with AP rounds)
-
Noticed today they posted pics of the M4A3 76MM barrel instead of the 75MM. Does this mean 2 M4A3s or options for the M4A3??? :x
Different turret on the M4A3(76) 2 different Shermans
-
The images they showed of the M4A3 (76) are not correct. The lower hull is an early Hull, with the driver and co driver hatch hood things. All the version that got the 76MM turret had the later hull with improved hatches.
(http://afvdb.50megs.com/usa/pics/m4a376w.jpg)
Also the sprockets seem to big and the tools are in the wrong places.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/news/images/m4a3_76mm/m4a3762.jpg)
-
We're going to change the hull on the 76mm to a later production wet version with the 47 degree front and large hatches.
-
It will be like a slow T-34/76 with a higher rate of fire. How do you feel in a T-34/76 against the Panzer IV H? Kill/death stats in AH indicate that isn't remotely close to a perfect match.
Read more. The 17lber on the Firefly made them target #1 for German tankers for a reason.
Also, keep in mind that there isn't simply a "88mm tank gun", but multiple versions. The 17lber on the Firefly and the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 on the Panther are superior to the 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger I, but probably inferior to the 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 on the Tiger II.
Thanks for the correction...while I am more than aware of the multiple Versions of the 88mm Gun including the monster 88 built into the Elefant Tank Destroyer, I was simply stating that while 1 shot from the 17lb WOULD disable a Tiger/Panther, etc...the 88 mm (all Variants) turned Allied Tanks into Funeral Pyres. But I do agree with you bud. :aok
-
We're going to change the hull on the 76mm to a later production wet version with the 47 degree front and large hatches.
E8 E8 E8 :furious :D
-
E8 E8 E8 :furious :D
E9 E9 E9 :P
-
If you count charging 6 shermans in, losing 5 so the last guy could sneak behind the panzer while he was aimed at poor schmuck #5 and shoot it in the engine compartment from behind, sure, then let's say it "fared quite well"....
The 75mm on the sherman won't kill a panzer in a frontal battle. It may not even damage it in a side battle. It will be one step above an M8 and one step below a T34 (without HVAP) in terms of hitting power.
where did you hear this? all i hear is that the M4A3 75mm was an equal to the Pnzr IV models of the desert warfare in africa... and what you just stated is what i heard about the PnzrVI aka tiger
-
We're going to change the hull on the 76mm to a later production wet version with the 47 degree front and large hatches.
Okay cool.
-
The Panzer IV modeled in AH is the 1944 Ausf. H. It has nearly double the frontal armor thickness of the early Pz IV models the M4 faced in Africa, and the gun is an upgraded long-barreled KwK 40 L/48. The 76mm M4 is a good match for the Pz IV, but the 75 mm will be inferior in firepower.
-
We're going to change the hull on the 76mm to a later production wet version with the 47 degree front and large hatches.
What are the advantages/disadvantages of this?
-
What are the advantages/disadvantages of this?
It looks accurate :)
-
What we really need is the PZIIIj for both N Africa and 1942 EF. By May 1942 the Pz IVG was in production so the up armor was well before the current version, but the 40L/43 gun (Early G) would be much more appropriate for MW scenarios. Add an M-10 on allied side and you'd have all you need for N africa...
-
waffle said wet version ... does this mean the amphibious m4 or am i reading too much in to this?
-
waffle said wet version ... does this mean the amphibious m4 or am i reading too much in to this?
guessing ammo storage...
-
waffle said wet version ... does this mean the amphibious m4 or am i reading too much in to this?
It refers to how the ammunition was stored. In the original production models, the Sherman had what was referred to as "dry" stowage where the ammunition was stowed in sponsons lined around the inside of the turret. This lead to the "Ronson" nickname of the Sherman because the tank had a tendency to burn after being hit, not because of the fuel as many believe.
In later production models, the ammunition stowage was redesigned by using "wet" stowage where the ammunition was stowed in bins under the turret floor that were filled with a water/gylcerine mixture to smoother fires before they became lethal. There was a US Army study (can't remember where I saw it) that claimed 10%-15% of Shermans with wet stowage burned compared to 80% with dry stowage.
ack-ack
-
It will be like a slow T-34/76 with a higher rate of fire. How do you feel in a T-34/76 against the Panzer IV H? Kill/death stats in AH indicate that isn't remotely close to a perfect match.
I don't have a problem with the t-34/76 against the panzer, it usually is a one hit kill. The only problem I have is the slow firing rate, which the Sherman won't have a problem with.
Also my first comment meant that I think you got your facts wrong, because I think it was the tiger that took 4 Shermans to take out not the panzer.
-
Also my first comment meant that I think you got your facts wrong, because I think it was the tiger that took 4 Shermans to take out not the panzer.
Your first comment was not a reply to me.
The K/D ratio of the Panzer IV H vs the T-34/76 massively favored the Panzer IV H prior to the introduction of HVAP rounds for the T-34/76. The M4A3 (75) will not have HVAP rounds. No matter how comfortable you personally are in the T-34/76 vs the Panzer IV H it is undeniable that the Panzer IV H dominates that matchup, barring the HVAP rounds, which I have not looked at their effect.
The M4A3 (76) will be a much more even fight for the Panzer IV H.
-
the M4A3(75MM) was out matched by the panzerIV even 2 vs 1
-
the M4A3(75MM) was out matched by the panzerIV even 2 vs 1
also stated above by
The Panzer IV modeled in AH is the 1944 Ausf. H. It has nearly double the frontal armor thickness of the early Pz IV models the M4 faced in Africa, and the gun is an upgraded long-barreled KwK 40 L/48. The 76mm M4 is a good match for the Pz IV, but the 75 mm will be inferior in firepower.
If we had the PnzrIV D then we'd have a perfect match for the M4A3/75
-
also stated above by
The Panzer IV D would get slaughtered by the T-34/76 or M4A3 (75).
-
If we had the PnzrIV D then we'd have a perfect match for the M4A3/75
(http://www.hmsneo.org/Tulsa%20Show%202006%20Images/%27Panzer%20IV%20D%27%20by%20Arthur%20Berning%20(1).jpg)
model but good representaion IMO
-
The Panzer IV D would get slaughtered by the T-34/76 or M4A3 (75).
ok...which model panzer IV am i thinking of then? i'm losing it...
-
To answer the original OP.
The 75 on the sherman was more accurate, had better HE rounds and actual smoke rounds compared to the 17 lbr on the firefly. It had a higher rate of fire and more ammo.
The M4a3 kept its bow mg.
There is no difference at all in the turret armour, unless you think the radio box on the back of the turret is better armour. There are Sherman turrets with more armour, but you could see it on any model Sherman.
There was a slight decrease in the negative elevation of the gun I believe. The gun had to be mounted on its side to fit.
The M4A3 75 could have a one axis stabilization that will likely not be in the game.
The weaknesses of the 17 lb gun in accuracy and in rounds shattering on contact with heavy armour are also not in the game.
By its factory specs the Firefly gun was near equal to the Panther gun, in the field it was not due to weaknesses in ammo design. It certainly could tear up Panzer IVs and Stugs though.
The Panzer IV Started the war with a 75mm gun of 24 calibers. Meant for infantry support. In the mid war they upgraded to a 43 Caliber 75mm for combating T 34s. The version we have in the game has the final 48 Caliber 75mm. The Sherman has a 34 Caliber gun and the Firefly is a 60 Caliber 76.2mm.
The calibers of these guns generally equate to the weight of the shell and the velocity of the round, and that impacts penetration of course.
So, The M4A3 76 is a good match(a bit better maybe) then the Panzer IV we have in the game.
The M4A3 75, will be superior to both at taking down towns and anti tank guns. But inferior to both in anti tank capability.
-
The calibers of these guns generally equate to the weight of the shell
no
caliber refers to length of the barrel.
if the barrel is 43 calibers, and the projetile is 75mm, then 75mmx43calibers=3325mm/25.4=127"/12"=10.5'.
so a 75mm gun of 43 calibers has a barrel lenght of 10.5 feet.
but however, the longer barrel DOES increase velocity and acuracy and range. the longer barrel
allows for more complete burning of the propellant charge and thus the above.
the PkW IV was used thru out the war, and the shell (75mmx495mm (AufF2) the barrel
got longer and longer, giving it the range and penatrating power.
for toejams and giggles the M3 gun used on the M4 is 75mmx350mm!
so can everyone see just by looking at the length of the shells for both of these 75mm rounds that the American sherman is just a waste of time!!
we HAVE a sherman...the Firefly...why the Frick do we need the Ronson?
-
For the rockets and other goodies hopefully upcoming :D
-
For the rockets and other goodies hopefully upcoming :D
well then I really hope THEY do and YOU do. cuz ill be waiting at 1200m in PkWIV knocking u around
when u cant even dent me at that range...
"Kenne landed 26 victories in..."
-
"The weaknesses of the 17 lb gun in accuracy and in rounds shattering on contact with heavy armour are also not in the game.
By its factory specs the Firefly gun was near equal to the Panther gun, in the field it was not due to weaknesses in ammo design. It certainly could tear up Panzer IVs and Stugs though."
The round you are referring to is the 17 lber's APDS round (Armor Peircing Discarding Sabot, made of tungsten) which is NOT modelled in the game. It could penetrate 233mm of armor at 1000 meters and was capable of killing either a Tiger or Panther at any angle. APDS tended to not be as accuarate as regular APCBC ammo beyond 1000 meters, but its killing power was very potent. APDS ammo was issued to Fireflys from Normandy untill wars end. Even with regular ammo the 17 lber was a very potent gun, capable of going through 150mm of armor at 1000 meters with APCBC ammo (its regular anti-tank load which is modelled in AH).
The US Army found in Normandy that their 76.2mm gun was not as powerfull as they would have liked when it came across Panthers and Tigers, but it was more than sufficiant to deal with the Panzer IV series. They also developed a specialist round for it, known as HVAP, that could do 175mm or armor at 1000 meters, but was not as good as APDS. It reached US Army units in the Fall of 1944.
The best books on the whole Sherman Firefly and US Army Sherman 76mm vs each other, and vs everything else, including design history, stats, and combat effectiveness are Ospreys books on the AFVs:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Sherman-Firefly_9781846032776
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M4-(76mm)-Sherman-Medium-Tank-1943–65_9781841765426
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Panther-vs-Sherman_9781846032929
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Sherman-Firefly-vs-Tiger-_9781846031502
"Tank vs Tank" by Kenneth Macksey is also a good book.
-
"The weaknesses of the 17 lb gun in accuracy and in rounds shattering on contact with heavy armour are also not in the game.
By its factory specs the Firefly gun was near equal to the Panther gun, in the field it was not due to weaknesses in ammo design. It certainly could tear up Panzer IVs and Stugs though."
The round you are referring to is the 17 lber's APDS round (Armor Peircing Discarding Sabot, made of tungsten) which is NOT modelled in the game. It could penetrate 233mm of armor at 1000 meters and was capable of killing either a Tiger or Panther at any angle. APDS tended to not be as accuarate as regular APCBC ammo beyond 1000 meters, but its killing power was very potent. APDS ammo was issued to Fireflys from Normandy untill wars end. Even with regular ammo the 17 lber was a very potent gun, capable of going through 150mm of armor at 1000 meters with APCBC ammo (its regular anti-tank load which is modelled in AH).
The US Army found in Normandy that their 76.2mm gun was not as powerfull as they would have liked when it came across Panthers and Tigers, but it was more than sufficiant to deal with the Panzer IV series. They also developed a specialist round for it, known as HVAP, that could do 175mm or armor at 1000 meters, but was not as good as APDS. It reached US Army units in the Fall of 1944. :
"Tank vs Tank" by Kenneth Macksey is also a good book.
excel post.
yea our 76 mm M10 round was 'on par' with the german 75...but only against the PkW4(~90mm). the panther and tiger had much more amour...over 100mm.
-
I've only read about 10 or so posts in this thread, but the point I'd like to make (in response to everyone saying "if its gun is on par with the T-34s, it's going to suck/be a hangar queen/ect") is how the game is slowly bringing the "standard" for tanks down.
People are used to getting bigger and better things. Upgrading, if you will. But if you look at the "strength" of the tanks being introduced, you'll notice that the average is declining. With proper balancing means, this can be put to good use. Back in AHI, you had three choices; Tiger, Panzer, M8. The Panzer was the throw-away tank and arrived en-mass to a target, while the Tiger could control the entire battlefield with decent support. A clash between groups of Tigers was a sight to behold. Due to that, the Panzer has always been seen as the standard tank in Aces High. With the introduction of the cheap Firefly, things got a bit confused.
With a properly made perk cost balance, we may see (rightfully in a historical sense) the T-34 and Sherman become the most used tanks in the game, with Panzers in slightly fewer numbers, Fireflies in a reduced quantity, and Tigers being rather rare. One could also do away with the historical lean on perk cost and use it only as a performance balancing system, in which the Firefly and Tiger would be equally rare.
As all of this is simply a proposition it obviously won't be specifically what's implemented. But, as you can see, it's a possibility. Just because we have ubertanks doesn't mean "lowering the bar" is a bad thing.
-
would suck if panzers (after this update) some how got perked (like a firefly) i like a panzer now and then but i (and multiple other players) dont use it as a throw away IMO
-
would suck if panzers (after this update) some how got perked (like a firefly) i like a panzer now and then but i (and multiple other players) dont use it as a throw away IMO
Not any more. The T-34 has filled that role. That example was back when the Tiger, Panzer, and M8 were the only vehicles with a "main gun."
-
Not any more. The T-34 has filled that role. That example was back when the Tiger, Panzer, and M8 were the only vehicles with a "main gun."
Tiger, Panzer, M8 and LVT4
ack-ack
-
I thought I'd forgotten one. How about "AP-capable" then? :D
-
no
caliber refers to length of the barrel.
if the barrel is 43 calibers, and the projetile is 75mm, then 75mmx43calibers=3325mm/25.4=127"/12"=10.5'.
so a 75mm gun of 43 calibers has a barrel lenght of 10.5 feet.
but however, the longer barrel DOES increase velocity and acuracy and range. the longer barrel
allows for more complete burning of the propellant charge and thus the above.
the PkW IV was used thru out the war, and the shell (75mmx495mm (AufF2) the barrel
got longer and longer, giving it the range and penatrating power.
for toejams and giggles the M3 gun used on the M4 is 75mmx350mm!
so can everyone see just by looking at the length of the shells for both of these 75mm rounds that the American sherman is just a waste of time!!
we HAVE a sherman...the Firefly...why the Frick do we need the Ronson?
HiTech said the M4A3 will not be the dry ammo version but the wet storage version, no fires... and this 75mm will be able to penetrate the PnzrIVH but will probably not kill on the front
-
and this 75mm will be able to penetrate the PnzrIVH but will probably not kill on the front
at what range?
-
at what range?
any? :headscratch: dude i just read your rampage thread about the M4A3/75mm, dont start here also... some of us like peace in war games
-
no
caliber refers to length of the barrel.
if the barrel is 43 calibers, and the projetile is 75mm, then 75mmx43calibers=3325mm/25.4=127"/12"=10.5'.
so a 75mm gun of 43 calibers has a barrel lenght of 10.5 feet.
but however, the longer barrel DOES increase velocity and acuracy and range. the longer barrel
allows for more complete burning of the propellant charge and thus the above.
the PkW IV was used thru out the war, and the shell (75mmx495mm (AufF2) the barrel
got longer and longer, giving it the range and penatrating power.
for toejams and giggles the M3 gun used on the M4 is 75mmx350mm!
so can everyone see just by looking at the length of the shells for both of these 75mm rounds that the American sherman is just a waste of time!!
we HAVE a sherman...the Firefly...why the Frick do we need the Ronson?
You say I am wrong, then you say exactly what I said.
Calibre refers to the ratio of the bore to the length.
That increases velocity which increases kinetic energy which increases penetration. With the extra shell weight and charge size that normally go with it, it really increases penetration.
So increased caliber generally increases penetration is totally correct. Its not a definition.
By your definition of what should be in the game, we only need the Panther, the Comet, the M26 and the Is2m. Right. If its not the best in the war, why even have it?
-
The calibers of these guns generally equate to the weight of the shell and the velocity of the round, and that impacts penetration of course.
this is what YOU typed.
where do you state length of barrel or ratio etc?
-
any?
really?
Then you are telling me that at 1200m the M3 75mm of the sherman,
should be neck n neck with the KwK40 75mm of the PkW4...yes?
-
Any chance you gents can wait to whine about the new Shermans until we have em?
What I'm starting to detect here is the typical "German tanks are invincible, Allied tanks are terrible" bit at work.
Kenne, it's just possible that some folks are interested in potential scenario uses etc, not just the last tank built before the war ended battles. Historically the short barrel 75 Sherman covers a lot more scenario turf then the Firefly.
Not everything is built for Latewar MA fights. You don't like it, don't use it.
-
depending on the new shermans reloading time the T34 will still be on bottom unless the rooks get there eny high enough to not have tanks again lol
-
Any chance you gents can wait to whine about the new Shermans until we have em?
Don't lump us all with Kenne. I'll lose self confidence. :(
-
"The weaknesses of the 17 lb gun in accuracy and in rounds shattering on contact with heavy armour are also not in the game.
By its factory specs the Firefly gun was near equal to the Panther gun, in the field it was not due to weaknesses in ammo design. It certainly could tear up Panzer IVs and Stugs though."
The round you are referring to is the 17 lber's APDS round (Armor Peircing Discarding Sabot, made of tungsten) which is NOT modelled in the game. It could penetrate 233mm of armor at 1000 meters and was capable of killing either a Tiger or Panther at any angle. APDS tended to not be as accuarate as regular APCBC ammo beyond 1000 meters, but its killing power was very potent. APDS ammo was issued to Fireflys from Normandy untill wars end. Even with regular ammo the 17 lber was a very potent gun, capable of going through 150mm of armor at 1000 meters with APCBC ammo (its regular anti-tank load which is modelled in AH).
The US Army found in Normandy that their 76.2mm gun was not as powerfull as they would have liked when it came across Panthers and Tigers, but it was more than sufficiant to deal with the Panzer IV series. They also developed a specialist round for it, known as HVAP, that could do 175mm or armor at 1000 meters, but was not as good as APDS. It reached US Army units in the Fall of 1944.
The best books on the whole Sherman Firefly and US Army Sherman 76mm vs each other, and vs everything else, including design history, stats, and combat effectiveness are Ospreys books on the AFVs:
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Sherman-Firefly_9781846032776
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/M4-(76mm)-Sherman-Medium-Tank-1943–65_9781841765426
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Panther-vs-Sherman_9781846032929
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/Sherman-Firefly-vs-Tiger-_9781846031502
"Tank vs Tank" by Kenneth Macksey is also a good book.
Throw in Mark Hayward's book "Sherman Firefly" on top of that pile too.
Steve Zaloga's early Osprey work "The Sherman Tank in US and Allied Service" is a decent history as well.
-
Don't lump us all with Kenne. I'll lose self confidence. :(
I agree, for 00z cant lose anything else.
Cuz if he loses his confidence, all he has left is fantasy.
-
well then I really hope THEY do and YOU do. cuz ill be waiting at 1200m in PkWIV knocking u around
when u cant even dent me at that range...
"Kenne landed 26 victories in..."
Since even tigers can be "dented" at that range, kinda wondering what you're driving? :rolleyes:
-
.
-
really?
Then you are telling me that at 1200m the M3 75mm of the sherman,
should be neck n neck with the KwK40 75mm of the PkW4...yes?
dude we're talking about frontal armor...not overall strength. and you do know 1,200 meters isnt really that far in terms of GV battles
-
The Pz IV was originally designed as an infantry support tank. The Pz III was designed as a tank destroyer to operate alongside the Pz IV, much like the US concept of using infantry support tanks and tank destroyers, except the Germans also armored their tank destroyers. The 1942 equivalent of a 75mm Sherman would be the Pz III Ausf. L with the 50mm KwK 39 L/60 and 70mm spaced frontal armor (50+20) on the superstructure and turret. The Pz IVs of that era were armed with a low velocity 75 mm gun and had less armor. The 50mm KwK 39 L/60 was a good match for the Sherman's 75mm in penetration, but obviously less effective against infantry. The Pz III's 70mm spaced front armor was also a good match for the Sherman's 51mm sloped armor.
(http://www.hobbyworks.com/images/media/tam32524.jpg)
For a 1941-1942 desert scenario (pre-Sherman) we would need earlier Pz III versions, Italian tanks and early British cruiser tanks.
-
The Pz IV was originally designed as an infantry support tank. The Pz III was designed as a tank destroyer to operate alongside the Pz IV, much like the US concept of using infantry support tanks and tank destroyers, except the Germans also armored their tank destroyers. The 1942 equivalent of a 75mm Sherman would be the Pz III Ausf. L with the 50mm KwK 39 L/60 and 70mm spaced frontal armor (50+20) on the superstructure and turret. The Pz IVs of that era were armed with a low velocity 75 mm gun and had less armor. The 50mm KwK 39 L/60 was a good match for the Sherman's 75mm in penetration, but obviously less effective against infantry. The Pz III's 70mm spaced front armor was also a good match for the Sherman's 51mm sloped armor.
(http://www.hobbyworks.com/images/media/tam32524.jpg)
For a 1941-1942 desert scenario (pre-Sherman) we would need earlier Pz III versions, Italian tanks and early British cruiser tanks.
ok ty for clearing this up. The III and IV look somewhat similar... maybe this is where i was mistaken
-
Yes, when they were designed in the 1930s a great deal of effort went into standardizing parts between the two models. They have the same tracks, road wheels, drive sprocket, return rollers, transmission and engine. Other parts such as hatches, periscopes, sights and electrical equipment was also the same.
-
Since even tigers can be "dented" at that range, kinda wondering what you're driving? :rolleyes:
dented yes, NOT killed, by the sherman, that is if modeled correctly.
and i drive the PkW4..dint u reed that in the post? :rolleyes:
-
and you do know 1,200 meters isnt really that far in terms of GV battles
of corse. but the 75mm sherman wood never engaged at that range. the shell just coodnt achieve satisfactory results at that range.
-
In reality typical combat ranges for WWII medium tanks were less than 500 yards. Only the big heavy hitters like the Tiger could effectively engage enemy tanks at beyond 1000 yards.
-
In reality typical combat ranges for WWII medium tanks were less than 500 yards. Only the big heavy hitters like the Tiger could effectively engage enemy tanks at beyond 1000 yards.
correct, so how much reality is gonna be 'modeled' into the 75mm?
-
ok ty for clearing this up. The III and IV look somewhat similar... maybe this is where i was mistaken
If you are ever unsure if you are looking at a III or a IV, count the road wheels. 6 on the III and 8 on the IV.
-
If you are ever unsure if you are looking at a III or a IV, count the road wheels. 6 on the III and 8 on the IV.
ok thanks