Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Madkow on June 09, 2010, 11:13:35 AM
-
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ocmlzdztmhz/Tiger_1835.ahf
Is it just me or is the new M4's armor really that good?
-
M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced. Instead of unperking the tiger correct the armor in the M4
-
Sherman armor in AH is not crap. Seems like anything over ~500 yds takes 2 or 3 shots with 75mm Panzer. Last T/34-85 I tried on it took 3 rounds and I got taken out by a single round from the Sherman I was shooting at.
-
M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced.
Amazing how much fail one can stuff in just two sentences :rolleyes:
-
Just took a look at the film, you were 2600 yards away. Just did a quick google search and came across this website, I don't have the source they site so I can't say how valid it is, or the angle of impact that they used as a reference but if I'm reading the charts right the Tiger SHOULDN'T be able to penetrate the front of the hull or turret of the Sherman at the ranges you were firing at.
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm)
-
I have not had one AP/HVAP round from an 85mm do anything but bounce off the front hull armor of the new M4s at any range.
The same hits would be solid/kill hits on the Firefly but not on the new tanks.
Is this due to an increased slope of armor on the American M4 or did the British Firefly have thinner armor?
-
I have not had one AP/HVAP round from an 85mm do anything but bounce off the front hull armor of the new M4s at any range.
The same hits would be solid/kill hits on the Firefly but not on the new tanks.
Is this due to an increased slope of armor on the American M4 or did the British Firefly have thinner armor?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,289415.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,289415.0.html)
-
I've found that a single 75mm HE round to the rear side armour of the M4 (seems to be either side, not sure about the back armour) destroys the tank almost every time.
-
M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced. Instead of unperking the tiger correct the armor in the M4
+1 in WWII it was general practice to engage a Tiger with 5 M4's for the sole reason the tiger would typically take out 3 before the other two could manuever in for a kill shot, which was on the rear.. and typically needed to be close/point blank range..
-
More anecdotal evidence please.
wrongway
-
More anecdotal evidence please.
Well, in this case stats actually confirms it. After D day, allied/axis losses were of 3:1 ratio
(only tank losses to gunfire, ie another tank or AT gun, all other losses excluded)
-
You mean where the Germans were sitting in defensive positions while the Allies were attacking? Operation
Goodwood and the Bocage offensive spring to mind. Where the Allies were forced into using chokepoints that
were fairly easily covered. During the dash across France, the losses were much lighter.
-
At least he did point out how short the French fall.......... That wasn't very FAIL. :aok
Amazing how much fail one can stuff in just two sentences :rolleyes:
-
Well, in this case stats actually confirms it. After D day, allied/axis losses were of 3:1 ratio
(only tank losses to gunfire, ie another tank or AT gun, all other losses excluded)
Well, if you wanttoi use stats...
Current tour
Tiger vs
M4(75) Kills 115 Deaths 1 K/D 115
M4(76)w Kills 949 Deaths 145 K/D 6.54
Yea, Tiger is porked and M4's are overmodeled. :lol
-
At least he did point out how short the French fall.......... That wasn't very FAIL. :aok
He was wrong on that matter too.
-
Well, if you wanttoi use stats...
Current tour
Tiger vs
M4(75) Kills 115 Deaths 1 K/D 115
M4(76)w Kills 949 Deaths 145 K/D 6.54
Yea, Tiger is porked and M4's are overmodeled. :lol
All that shows is how popular they are. Wait til the new wears off.
-
All that shows is how popular they are. Wait til the new wears off.
That table doesn't show popularity... it's showing K/D of Tiger vs the two M4's.
And btw, give me one reason why the popularity of the (76) should wear off? It's far superior to the other 2 unperked tanks.
-
Pretty amazing that last tour the M4A3(76) had 20.2% of the total kills on Tigers and the only thing even close was the Firefly at 17.1%. This tour is looking worse for the Tiger getting killed by the M4A3(76) scoring 26.8% of total Tiger kills.
The only thing able to rack up a large percentage of kills on the M4A3(76) is that tank...now either that is due to popularity or there is a damage problem, you choose. And it shouldn't be "far superior" to the Panzer IV, more competitive than the 75mm yes due to turret structure and armament, but the hull armor was the same and should have the same vulnerabilities.
I didn't say the new is supposed to wear off, I said wait til it does.
-
Well, if you wanttoi use stats...
Current tour
Tiger vs
M4(75) Kills 115 Deaths 1 K/D 115
M4(76)w Kills 949 Deaths 145 K/D 6.54
Yea, Tiger is porked and M4's are overmodeled. :lol
I didn't comment on in game vehicles. I know nothing about them.
It was response to AWwrgwy's comment about SEseph's post. Nothing more :aok
-
I have found the new M4's are harder to kill with the Ill2 than just about any other tank. I kill tigers, panzers, t34's regularly with one pass and the M4's always take 2 or more.
-
The new m4a3-76 is the 2nd strongest behind the tiger ATM and it does seem far to hard to kill with solid body hits, the same killzones as I used for tons if firefly kills.
It is glitched.
-
M4 armor is crap, that's one of the reason its call the ronson. Except the french the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war, only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced. Instead of unperking the tiger correct the armor in the M4
I disagree.....Japanese tanks were made out of rice paper.....
-
Amazing how much fail one can stuff in just two sentences :rolleyes:
:lol :aok
-
here's a hint about the M4s. if you are having trouble penetrating its front, shoot below the front plate where the frontal armor meets the bottom armor. it is weakest here and usually gives a big boom to the driver right afterwards
-
As to BAR's post: The corners in a deflection shot seem to be rather weak as well. Perhaps due to the welds? Takes 2 shots to kill one at 1200yds in the corners if you are good.
-
Well, if you wanttoi use stats...
Current tour
Tiger vs
M4(75) Kills 115 Deaths 1 K/D 115
M4(76)w Kills 949 Deaths 145 K/D 6.54
Yea, Tiger is porked and M4's are overmodeled. :lol
Agreed, here's proof for ya
Source: http://fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
Quote:
The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).
Quote:
The truth was that the German industry simply couldn't produce Tigers in sufficient numbers to make any difference in the big picture - it was a task well beyond wartime German industry capabilities. Just as a comparison on productive capabilities, the Russians produced 23,937 T-34/76 from 1942 to 1945. The American Pershing tank was built at a rate of 1,350 tanks over a six month period. When production ceased in June 1945, 49,234 Sherman tanks had been built - more than all the German tank production during the entire war.
....
The Tiger I was phased out in 1944. By August of that year 1,300+ had been made.
-
No way 1300+ tigers were made by the starved german war machine. Ever since 1942, things were going down hill for Germany. Oh sure, they had the initiative at the end of Karkov, and at Kursk, but that was the last time the germans had the stratigic initative on the Eastern Front. Germany was playing defense in Italy and in Normandy.
Fact is that Germany got overambitious, and attacked Russia. What they should have done was consolidated their gains in the west, and fortified France, Belgium, Italy, Denmark and Norway to hell and gone. They could have made a nice little empire for themselves if they'd sat tight. The war was all but won by 1940. There was no real reason to Invade russia other than oil, and if Germany had focused on Africa instead of Russia, that problem would have been solved by the Middle East.
Just my $0.02
-
Yes there were over 1,300 Tiger I's made.
-
No way 1300+ tigers were made by the starved german war machine. Ever since 1942, things were going down hill for Germany.
You are aware that production numbers for things like planes, tanks and so on peaked long after 1942, for many items in the second half of 1944 even?
In 1942, Germany produced about 5,500 armored fighting vehicles, in 1943 ~13,600, in 1944 ~19,000.
-
I'm aware of that, but it did them less good than the numbers would indicate. The russians were fielding their T-34's and even starting to field the Is-2's by that time. Su100's were being fielded in 1944, and they could easily destroy a tiger.
And I was thinking of production numbers for the Tiger II, so you are right.
-
Everyone says M4 armor is crap !! I agree in real history it was but dadgumit in here if it doesn't take me 10 direct hits to destroy one. I shot a darn M$ 11 times full flush in the side and nothingg. He turns his damn turret as I'm steady plugging him full side shots and shoots me once and I'm dead !!! TIGER what .... TIGER who ? To add insult to injury I upped just to see .... I got behind a M4 shoot him in his arse directly in fuel tank 3 times and nothing !!! AGAIN he turns turret while I'm sitting dazed in awe and cunfused and puts 1... I repeat only 1 round into ME and I'm dead !!
I love Gv'ing but theres something terribly wrong with GV damage model !
-
Last week we were capturing a GV base and a Tiger was defending it right in the middle. We overwhelmed the base so much as we have been able to capture it with the tiger still 100% operational (he had vehicle supplies). Friendly ack starts shooting at him, he destroys all of it. Then all 3 VHs are down, ords and radar. An M4 was lobbing shells at him 50yards away for a good 2minutes as well as a T-34 from 0.7k. Bot got shot by that Tiger. After 10minutes protecting the airspace, I gave up finally witnessing the slaying of that tank and went home. On the way back, assist.
Everyone of our friendlies in the area thought this Tiger was "invincible". So, I let no one dare say to unperk this machine. It can survive a beating.
-
M4 armor is crap
Nonsense. Its armor was comparable to the later Panzer IVs with a superior slope, and thicker than the T-34/76s but with less slope.
that's one of the reason its call the ronson.
Incorrect. The reason it got nicknames like "Ronson" and "Tommy Cooker" was because of a deficiency in its ammo stowage, not its armor, making it more likely to go up in a blaze when penetrated than other contemporary medium tanks. This deficiency was remedied in the "w" models, which include both the new Shermans, by "wet stowage" of ammo which made the risk of fire more comparable to other tanks.
Except the french
Incorrect. Almost all of the French tanks deployed in 1940 had heavier armor than their German counterparts. The French stopped building tanks (as opposed to various specialty vehicles built for the Germans) after 1940, so their armor didn't get scaled up like the Germans' did, but there were still a few 1940-vintage German Mk. IVs soldiering on in Normandy in 1944, and they still had thinner armor than the Char B and much thinner than any M4.
the Sherman had the thinnest armor in the war
Adressed above. There were scads and scads of tanks in the war with thinner armor, many of them still operating in 1944 - for starters, every Japanese tank employed anywhere outside China or Japan and every Italian tank employed anywhere (apart from about 100 non-turreted TDs). Tigers get all the attention but they were much rarer in RL than in the game; Germany produced in the ballpark of 20,000 medium tanks plus many thousands of light tanks, TDs, SPs, and other ACVs, and the only tanks (as oppose to TDs) out of all those that had armor substantially superior to the Sherman were about 6,000 Panthers.
(Also, anecdotal accounts from Allied soldiers make the Tiger seem more common than it was since inexperienced troops generally looked at anything heavier than a 38(t) and saw a Tiger.)
only reason it was successful was the numbers it was produced.
As successful as it was, sure, but then it was arguably more successful than any other tank in the war aside from the T-34 which was produced - and lost - in even greater numbers. Anyway they did well enough when not overmatched against Panthers or Tigers, at 2nd El Alamein, for example. And the early problems were more due to green US troops facing Rommel's seasoned veterans, at Kasserine for example - the US could have had Pershings or even Panthers and the outcome would have been the same when they rolled obliviously right up to well-concealed 88s.
Also, as Stalin said, quantity has a quality all its own. ;) However powerful the Tiger was, it was a bad design because it was moredifficult to produce than it was worth on the battlefield: maybe the Allies needed 5 Shermans or T-34s to kill a Tiger or Panther, but given that they produced twenty times as many that was only a problem if you were a Sherman or T-34 crewman. And add to that something that the game regrettably (and IMO mistakenly) doesn't address, mechanical reliability, and the Allied tanks come out that much better in the balance.
-
(...)
It's futile. No amount of facts and reasonable analysis will ever get players step away from the mixture of prejudice and myth, fueled by crappy TV shows and anecdotal "knowledge". (Put in any absurd reference to the French and it HAS to be true!)
Particularly after they have been killed in their "invincible Tiger" by a Firefly ("It's a Sherman! You needed 5 Shermans for each blah blah... no way a Sherman can ever blah blah") at close range.
It's the same stuff as Allied fighters allegedly killing heavy German armor by the hundreds with rockets & gunfire... Who cares for facts if he KNOWS the truth....
-
It's futile. No amount of facts and reasonable analysis will ever get players step away from the mixture of prejudice and myth, fueled by crappy TV shows and anecdotal "knowledge".
Even if I add a pie chart?
-
OK, here's an expert opinion I trust (start at 2:00) if you are in hurry:'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHEmTepBWLw
Mullah
-
Everyone says M4 armor is crap !! I agree in real history it was but dadgumit in here if it doesn't take me 10 direct hits to destroy one. I shot a darn M$ 11 times full flush in the side and nothingg. He turns his damn turret as I'm steady plugging him full side shots and shoots me once and I'm dead !!! TIGER what .... TIGER who ? To add insult to injury I upped just to see .... I got behind a M4 shoot him in his arse directly in fuel tank 3 times and nothing !!! AGAIN he turns turret while I'm sitting dazed in awe and cunfused and puts 1... I repeat only 1 round into ME and I'm dead !!
I've never had an M4 take more than 3 rounds to kill (and thats with the M4(75) mind you) unless its driven by someone I know to be sketchy.
The M4's frontal armor is equivelant to that of the T-34/76's (and superior to that of the panzer's, btw) and we never hear complaints about them absorbing vast numbers of shells. Personally I think its a problem with people hitting them at an angle which causes the thicnkess of the armor to be increased (I've noticed that M4 drivers will place their forward corners to you, so as to create more ricochets and increase the thickness of their armor), and people hitting their tracks, thinking they hit the lower hull. Put up a film viewer file, and lets have HTC tell us if something's fubar, or if some people are being paranoied.
A few days ago, I killed 10 tanks at V85 in the Compello map, I made 4 frontal kills, and 6 side shots. I was in an M4A3(75), and towered out because dinner was ready, not because I got killed, or turreted. I didn't take a single shell the whole time. Either I'm unknowingly cheating, or most aren't as good as they think they are.
-
OK, here's an expert opinion I trust (start at 2:00) if you are in hurry:'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHEmTepBWLw
Well, that PLAINLY identifies the source of the problem some players seem to be experiencing - negative waves! :eek: :lol :bolt:
-
T/34-85
^^^^^^^^^
is crap
-
Guys, just did the math on this, the M4's 50ish mm armor plate with the slope would be equivelant to around 100mm's of armor (give or take). So unless you are complaining that tigers are taking too much damage, the M4 should be fine. They are pretty easy to kill actually.
-
OK, here's an expert opinion I trust (start at 2:00) if you are in hurry:'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHEmTepBWLw
Mullah
yup... clint could say dog poo smells good and i would have to believe um. :aok
even D. Sutherland :rock
froger
-
reload is nice on the 76, I have popped a few tigers before they had a chance to get there next shot off.
don't know much about the real life M4, just like how fast the ingame M476 reloads :D
froger
-
Guys, just did the math on this, the M4's 50ish mm armor plate with the slope would be equivelant to around 100mm's of armor (give or take). So unless you are complaining that tigers are taking too much damage, the M4 should be fine. They are pretty easy to kill actually.
Really? You just did the math? Or did you just take that from Squire's post here (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,290565.18.html)?
:rofl
-
I saw that, looked it up on the interweb, and then I confirmed it with my own math skills.
Thats an unusuall amount of research for me.
-
It's futile. No amount of facts and reasonable analysis will ever get players [to] step away from the mixture of prejudice and myth, fueled by crappy TV shows and anecdotal "knowledge".
+1
People readily believe what they want to believe
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.