Aces High Bulletin Board
Help and Support Forums => Aces High Bug Reports => Topic started by: Spikes on June 24, 2010, 11:54:21 AM
-
Had a point blank shot on a M4A3 76 in a Tiger today hit him twice in the hull with the good hit sprite and nothing...turned his turret and popped me one shot...
No I don't have film I was P/O'ed and didn't save it.
The hull armor deal has affected me more than this time as well...it's happened to me on several occasions where the 76 will just shrug it off.
-
You could test it offline and film it. If you find results strange or questionable you could then present the film.
-
When I tried that the tank dies instantly...very strange however. It almost seems like offline tanks die easier.
-
I have survived anywhere from 4 to 7 hits from panzers, m4's many times while in the m4 75. But yet I can usually kill one with one shot in same tank by hitting on the driver position. anywhere else it takes more than 1 shot. Lots of people have said it is bs that the new m4's can survive so many hits and I agree.
semp
-
Had a point blank shot on a M4A3 76 in a Tiger today hit him twice in the hull with the good hit sprite and nothing...turned his turret and popped me one shot...
No I don't have film I was P/O'ed and didn't save it.
The hull armor deal has affected me more than this time as well...it's happened to me on several occasions where the 76 will just shrug it off.
Had the same problem when I took a T-34/85 and hit them with an HVAP round to the front of the turret. Instead of killing the tank, it just disabled the turret which was stupid. So I jumped into an M4 76 and get hit once in the turret, boom, it knocks out of turret instead of killing me. Looks like the M4 76 is yet again screwed up thanks to the last update.
-
Well it's not even killing the turret...it's just shrugging it off. I hit him twice, while I was reloading it casually turned his turret and popped me.
-
Well it's not even killing the turret...it's just shrugging it off. I hit him twice, while I was reloading it casually turned his turret and popped me.
The question is: Where did you hit him? Particularly on the turret, a few inches can make all the difference. To bad we do not have a film. It's very had to tell from memory, where exactly the shot hit, what angle of impact, and which range. More than once I thought I have seen "this" while afterwards the film viewer showed me otherwise ;)
Make it a habit to roll film. You can always cancel the film at the end or clean out your folder later.
-
I was rolling film but I'm accustomed to canceling it and that's what I did. I jsut did it in offline again and every shot from the same position was a kill shot...but in the MA it's not like that...ever.
Here's an image of where I shot and at what range.
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/ahss91.jpg
-
The question is: Where did you hit him? Particularly on the turret, a few inches can make all the difference. To bad we do not have a film. It's very had to tell from memory, where exactly the shot hit, what angle of impact, and which range. More than once I thought I have seen "this" while afterwards the film viewer showed me otherwise ;)
Make it a habit to roll film. You can always cancel the film at the end or clean out your folder later.
But it doesn't matter where he hit him, if he's in a Tiger 88mm will kill any tank at any range, no matter where it lands. Especially M4's which had the thinest armor and usually died in one shot from Tiger in real life :old:
-
But it doesn't matter where he hit him, if he's in a Tiger 88mm will kill any tank at any range, no matter where it lands. Especially M4's which had the thinest armor and usually died in one shot from Tiger in real life :old:
Sorry, but that's just two plainly wrong statements. That's schoolyard hearsay knowledge at best. The typical eternally perpetuated myth with not much facts in it.
-
Yup listen to the myth of tiger gunners that would come back with hundreds of hits but alive. Or the t34 drvers that were taught the best way to stop tiger was by crashing into it.
Semp
-
Yup listen to the myth of tiger gunners that would come back with hundreds of hits but alive.
Does that mean a tiger gun will kill any tank at any range no matter where it lands? Nope. That's just complete bolloks.
You guys really have to stop to take individual anecdotic accounts and produce extremely overgeneralized and wrong statements.
With you logic, I could claim "some 109 pilots did kill hundreds of enemies - the Me 109 was superior to all fighters and would always shoot them all down."
Tiger rounds did ricochet of simply fail to penetrate, depending on range armor thickness, sloping and shot placement. The Tiger was a fearsome enemy, but not the "awasome invincile supertank" of newspapers, movies or cheap TV shows.
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/1796/tigervst34js122.jpg)
And if you would really look at the armor thickness values of WWII tanks you would notice that the M4A3 did not have "thin armor" at all.
-
what I said is that tiger tanks would come back from the front with hundred of hits on its hulls but alive. and they were not a one shot road kill like they are here. T34 found the easiest way to disable tigers was to ram them in place while the infantry took care of the crew.
semp
-
what I said is that tiger tanks would come back from the front with hundred of hits on its hulls but alive.
Please show me one example of a Tiger surviving hundreds of hits.
and they were not a one shot road kill like they are here.
Ever thought that's the result of completely different tactis & battlefield conditions? Tigers could & were killed in one shot under right circumstances. Look up armor penetration data for guns like the 76mm on the M4A3(76w), The Sherman Firefly, the T-34/85, SU-100... even the source I presented above should give you a clue.
T34 found the easiest way to disable tigers was to ram them in place while the infantry took care of the crew.
Source? WHich T-34? What time in the war? Which battle, under which conditions? Why should a T-34/85 ram a Tiger when he can penetrate the armor?
This whole mix of myths, exaggerations and mixed up facts is hilarious at times... but as this is the bug report forum, I'm out here. But I recommend reading books.. and not just that kind filled with selective anecdotes and no hard data.
Snailman out.
-
T34 crews DID ram tigers in WWII in order to stop the 88mm gun from the ability to rotate. but they did not do this as a main tactic to disable tigers.
-
Please show me one example of a Tiger surviving hundreds of hits.
Ever thought that's the result of completely different tact is & battlefield conditions? Tigers could & were killed in one shot under right circumstances. Look up armor penetration data for guns like the 76mm on the M4A3(76w), The Sherman Firefly, the T-34/85, SU-100... even the source I presented above should give you a clue.
Source? Which T-34? What time in the war? Which battle, under which conditions? Why should a T-34/85 ram a Tiger when he can penetrate the armor?
This whole mix of myths, exaggerations and mixed up facts is hilarious at times... but as this is the bug report forum, I'm out here. But I recommend reading books.. and not just that kind filled with selective anecdotes and no hard data.
Snailman out.
Have you seen Tiger 88mm footage? Mostly anything it hit it died, blew up, pretty much just didn't come out alive. When an 88mm hit a tank, it would go through the whole tank and kill the crew within the impact. Sure an M4 can take a hit or two of 88mm, but it shouldn't last like it does in AH. If you want to see hundreds of hits that the Tiger took, go to youtube, type in Tiger tank, should be the second video down. It says that in a 6 hour engagement, the Tiger got hit 227 times despite the damage it had, but still returned safely home( This is probably the data that you're looking for?) :headscratch:. That's how a Tiger should be modeled, the only threat that could possibly match it was the VC Firefly, the regular M4s would have to shoot at it from behind really close up in able to actually kill it, not the front, shots from the gun would just bounce off the frontal armor on the Tiger.
-
the regular M4s would have to shoot at it from behind really close up in able to actually kill it, not the front, shots from the gun would just bounce off the frontal armor on the Tiger.
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4057/76wvstiger.jpg)
-
(http://MiG571.imageshack.us/MiG571/4057/76vestige.jog)
Did you go to youtube, type in Tiger tank, and look at the second video down? It'll explain everything that I'm talking about, how it should be modeled, how many hits it should take, etc. Distance for the regular M4s was obviously at close range, the barrel on the tank wasn't that long, it couldn't even penetrate the Tiger's armor from long distance, approximately 800 yrds out it couldn't do anything to the Tiger. Just look at the video of the Tiger tank and reply once you've had a good look at it.
-
Did you go to youtube, type in Tiger tank, and look at the second video down? It'll explain everything that I'm talking about, how it should be modeled, how many hits it should take, etc. Distance for the regular M4s was obviously at close range, the barrel on the tank wasn't that long, it couldn't even penetrate the Tiger's armor from long distance, approximately 800 yrds out it couldn't do anything to the Tiger. Just look at the video of the Tiger tank and reply once you've had a good look at it.
Ok.. I'll bite one last time
I) What is a "regular" Sherman? The M4A3(75) is one. The M4A3(76)w is one too. One could penetrate the tigers front, the other could not.And in AH, the M4A3(75) will have the same experience: It's shells will just bounce off the Tiger's front.
Be precise in what you are saying. (That's the crux with TV shows: They just say "Sherman" when they are talking about a specific early model, and the dolts here freak out when a different type Sherman with a high velocity cannon kills a Tiger "CH200; "WFT, the game has it all wrong, I saw it on YOUTUBE!!!"
II) Keyword: Critical assessment of sources. Thus Youtube videos are not a particular strong reference, as well as History channel shows or similar. Don't just repeat common myths or hearsay. Try to educate yourself about details. First step would be researching on the net. Keep attention to websites presenting fact, details and morst important: Give sources for their claims. Second step would be reading books. And be critical about what you are reading. Always ask yourself: Do you know something.. or do you just believe something?
Some websites that have some good information about he Tiger or WWII AFV's in general:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html
http://gva.freeweb.hu/ A very detailed site about gun & armor performance, giving penetration data from RW tests for all kind of guns.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/ The American fighting vehicle database
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp A bit difficult to navigate on at first, but giving a tremendous amount of penetration data, as weel as all it's sources for it.
III) Then avoid blunt errors like making flat claims without having factual detail knowledge." M4 had thinnest armor" is wrong - You would know that if you ever read up about tank development in WW2. "Tiger 88 will kill any tank at any range" is so much wrong it's almost hilarious. It's typical TV fiction or comicbook stuff.
The tiger was a very dangerous foe when playing his strengths, and could dominate the battlefiled if the conditions were right. But was not the invincible wondertank of wet schoolboy dreams.
-
I still don't see how the Tiger didn't kill the M4 at point blank with 2 roundds to the hull. Oh and yes I tried hitting him in the turret but it bounced off, so I didn't want to do that again eh.
-
(http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/4057/76wvstiger.jpg)
what is DFP?
and is you table correct, the tiger CANNOT pierce either Shermans DFP??
-
what is DFP?
and is you table correct, the tiger CANNOT pierce either Shermans DFP??
Drivers front plate, and if I recall correctly, there is simply no data on that for the Shermans..
-
OK.. I'll bite one last time
I) What is a "regular" Sherman? The M4A3(75) is one. The M4A3(76)w is one too. One could penetrate the tigers front, the other could not.And in AH, the M4A3(75) will have the same experience: It's shells will just bounce off the Tiger's front.
Be precise in what you are saying. (That's the crux with TV shows: They just say "Sherman" when they are talking about a specific early model, and the dolts here freak out when a different type Sherman with a high velocity cannon kills a Tiger "CH200; "WFT, the game has it all wrong, I saw it on YOUTUBE!!!"
II) Keyword: Critical assessment of sources. Thus Youtube videos are not a particular strong reference, as well as History channel shows or similar. Don't just repeat common myths or hearsay. Try to educate yourself about details. First step would be researching on the net. Keep attention to websites presenting fact, details and most important: Give sources for their claims. Second step would be reading books. And be critical about what you are reading. Always ask yourself: Do you know something.. or do you just believe something?
Some websites that have some good information about he Tiger or WWII AF V's in general:
http://www.Prado.com/armorsite/tiger1.HTML
http://www..com/tiger.HTML
http://Gav.freeweb.HI/ A very detailed site about gun & armor performance, giving penetration data from RW tests for all kind of guns.
http://overdub.50megs.com/ The American fighting vehicle database
http://www.vehicles.com/default.asp A bit difficult to navigate on at first, but giving a tremendous amount of penetration data, as wheel as all it's sources for it.
III) Then avoid blunt errors like making flat claims without having factual detail knowledge." M4 had thinnest armor" is wrong - You would know that if you ever read up about tank development in WW2. "Tiger 88 will kill any tank at any range" is so much wrong it's almost hilarious. It's typical TV fiction or comicbook stuff.
The tiger was a very dangerous foe when playing his strengths, and could dominate the battlefiled if the conditions were right. But was not the invincible wondertank of wet schoolboy dreams.
It was posted by the military channel, ACTUAL results that were recorded. The M4 75/76, doesn't matter which one, they can't kill a Tiger in less than 3 hits from the ranges you posted, that's AH penetration chart, not real life. What do you mean M4 didn't have thin armor??!! Explain why they were recorded to have thin armor and caught fire easily. Go to youtube, they have a series of M4's armor tests from a Tiger's round, the Tiger tank video I described, they show you anything you want to see about the two tanks. Books and charts don't show enough data/info then what was recorded in videos. Unless you look at the Tiger video I told you about on youtube or more Sherman info, you really have no reason to continue this post.
-
Military channel vs History Channel. Military tells what was actually recorded by facts of it. History channel shows was it "supposed" to be on it, not showing accurate facts/data.
-
Ok.. I'll bite one last time
I) What is a "regular" Sherman? The M4A3(75) is one. The M4A3(76)w is one too. One could penetrate the tigers front, the other could not.And in AH, the M4A3(75) will have the same experience: It's shells will just bounce off the Tiger's front.
Be precise in what you are saying. (That's the crux with TV shows: They just say "Sherman" when they are talking about a specific early model, and the dolts here freak out when a different type Sherman with a high velocity cannon kills a Tiger "CH200; "WFT, the game has it all wrong, I saw it on YOUTUBE!!!"
II) Keyword: Critical assessment of sources. Thus Youtube videos are not a particular strong reference, as well as History channel shows or similar. Don't just repeat common myths or hearsay. Try to educate yourself about details. First step would be researching on the net. Keep attention to websites presenting fact, details and morst important: Give sources for their claims. Second step would be reading books. And be critical about what you are reading. Always ask yourself: Do you know something.. or do you just believe something?
Some websites that have some good information about he Tiger or WWII AFV's in general:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm
http://www.alanhamby.com/tiger.html
http://gva.freeweb.hu/ A very detailed site about gun & armor performance, giving penetration data from RW tests for all kind of guns.
http://afvdb.50megs.com/ The American fighting vehicle database
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/default.asp A bit difficult to navigate on at first, but giving a tremendous amount of penetration data, as weel as all it's sources for it.
III) Then avoid blunt errors like making flat claims without having factual detail knowledge." M4 had thinnest armor" is wrong - You would know that if you ever read up about tank development in WW2. "Tiger 88 will kill any tank at any range" is so much wrong it's almost hilarious. It's typical TV fiction or comicbook stuff.
The tiger was a very dangerous foe when playing his strengths, and could dominate the battlefiled if the conditions were right. But was not the invincible wondertank of wet schoolboy dreams.
Plus your info/data that your putting up doesn't even make any sense. As I told that a Tiger was in a 6 hour engagement and took 227 hits from M4 Shermans at those ranges, not the Firefly model. Despite the damage it had, it STILL managed to return home safely. All the Shermans it fought in that 6 hours, were at the ranges you posted and didn't kill him in 2-3 shots like it does in
AH, which is bogus. That just obviously proves that the Tiger in AH is really screwed up and modeled wrong from M4 75/76's hits. As for the M4 75/76, why do you think it's so easy to kill from the side, it has the THINNEST ARMOR there! The front, can shake off very little hits, 88mm SHOULDN'T be hitting it in the front twice and bouncing off, it should be going through 1 time and killing him, that's just bs if that happens.
-
Plus your info/data that your putting up doesn't even make any sense. As I told that a Tiger was in a 6 hour engagement and took 227 hits from M4 Shermans at those ranges, not the Firefly model. Despite the damage it had, it STILL managed to return home safely. All the Shermans it fought in that 6 hours, were at the ranges you posted and didn't kill him in 2-3 shots like it does in
AH, which is bogus. That just obviously proves that the Tiger in AH is really screwed up and modeled wrong from M4 75/76's hits. As for the M4 75/76, why do you think it's so easy to kill from the side, it has the THINNEST ARMOR there! The front, can shake off very little hits, 88mm SHOULDN'T be hitting it in the front twice and bouncing off, it should be going through 1 time and killing him, that's just bs if that happens.
Hey Thrash,
So far, the only source you've cited is a YouTube video that tells the story of 1 Tiger. No offense...it's not a case study that provides conclusive proof of your claim that all Tigers can survive that sort of damage and the AH Tiger model is "screwed up". Can you cite any source besides YouTube that would support your claims?
-
Hey Thrash,
So far, the only source you've cited is a YouTube video that tells the story of 1 Tiger. No offense...it's not a case study that provides conclusive proof of your claim that all Tigers can survive that sort of damage and the AH Tiger model is "screwed up". Can you cite any source besides YouTube that would support your claims?
If you read spikes report, you would obviously know what I'm talking about
-
If you read spikes report, you would obviously know what I'm talking about
Really? What I am challenging are YOUR comments...what sources can you cite to support the comments YOU made???- not the ones that Spikes made or what Spikes experienced in game.
-
I still don't see how the Tiger didn't kill the M4 at point blank with 2 roundds to the hull. Oh and yes I tried hitting him in the turret but it bounced off, so I didn't want to do that again eh.
the rounds went straight through the tank and did no major damage. at point blank those AP rounds on a wet storage model would just punch holes and would not explode. the sherman turret at the mantlet is the most armored portion of the sherman. 89mm of armor WITHOUT the mantlet included. if you shot a little to the left or right you would have turreted the sherman or killed it... unless the angle forced a deflection on the shape of the freaking turret. (aka. a sherman turret is just plain annoying.)
-
Really? What I am challenging are YOUR comments...what sources can you cite to support the comments YOU made???- not the ones that Spikes made or what Spikes experienced in game.
:rofl Challenging mine??! Look at what spikes posted as he said a Sherman hit him once and killed him, look at the report recorded about a Tiger getting hit from the same distance by the same tank and it survived 227 hits from all other M4 Shermans, not the firefly model, it didn't die, and managed to drive home safely after that 6 hour engagement, do these two reports match to you, I didn't think so! :O
-
Nor should they match. One is a real world incident, the other is a game.
-
:rofl Challenging mine??! Look at what spikes posted as he said a Sherman hit him once and killed him, look at the report recorded about a Tiger getting hit from the same distance by the same tank and it survived 227 hits from all other M4 Shermans, not the firefly model, it didn't die, and managed to drive home safely after that 6 hour engagement, do these two reports match to you, I didn't think so! :O
My question is not about what happened to Spikes in-game. You made very specific real world comments about the Tiger's performance during WWII and challenged HTC's Tiger modeling. 1 Tiger surviving 227 hits is NOT a case study for the performance of all Tigers. If you believe that all Tigers should perform this way then I'm challenging you to cite your sources besides the YouTube video.
-
Nor should they match. One is a real world incident, the other is a game.
Actually they should match, if HTC is going to have a tank that dominated Europe, then they need to model it right, especially if it's perked and you die in one shot from a sherman 75/76, might as well not be perked if it isn't modeled correctly.
-
My question is not about what happened to Spikes in-game. You made very specific real world comments about the Tiger's performance during WWII and challenged HTC's Tiger modeling. 1 Tiger surviving 227 hits is NOT a case study for the performance of all Tigers. If you believe that all Tigers should perform this way then I'm challenging you to cite your sources besides the YouTube video.
What sources do I have to site?? All that is recorded on how a Tiger performed is all on youtube, film of Tigers killing tanks one hit, armor penetration, etc. There's absolutely no reason why the Tiger should be like this. Youtube videos show documentary of anything you need, basically listening to a source instead of looking at it on a site, what difference does it make? The same info is given no matter what site it is. Look anything up on youtube on Tiger tank and you tell me what's different to what you would read in a book or any other website.
-
What sources do I have to site?? All that is recorded on how a Tiger performed is all on youtube, film of Tigers killing tanks one hit, armor penetration, etc. There's absolutely no reason why the Tiger should be like this. Youtube videos show documentary of anything you need, basically listening to a source instead of looking at it on a site, what difference does it make? The same info is given no matter what site it is. Look anything up on youtube on Tiger tank and you tell me what's different to what you would read in a book or any other website.
Very well, YouTube is the only source of your information.
-
IMO regardless if it took 227 hits or not and returned, it should take more than 1. But still that is not the point. The point is why the M4 shrugged off two hits from the Tiger.
-
Actually they should match, if HTC is going to have a tank that dominated Europe, then they need to model it right, especially if it's perked and you die in one shot from a sherman 75/76, might as well not be perked if it isn't modeled correctly.
This is a game and being one there are certain concessions that HTC will take to make the game playable as well as enjoyable.
Take the recent radar changes. While nothing like the "real world" it's how it is set up in the game. Trees are another thing. Tanks in the real world can drive right over them, in the game they are obstacles that you must drive around to make things more challenging.
-
It was posted by the military channel, ACTUAL results that were recorded. The M4 75/76, doesn't matter which one, they can't kill a Tiger in less than 3 hits from the ranges you posted, that's AH penetration chart, not real life. What do you mean M4 didn't have thin armor??!! Explain why they were recorded to have thin armor and caught fire easily. Go to youtube, they have a series of M4's armor tests from a Tiger's round, the Tiger tank video I described, they show you anything you want to see about the two tanks. Books and charts don't show enough data/info then what was recorded in videos. Unless you look at the Tiger video I told you about on youtube or more Sherman info, you really have no reason to continue this post.
*facepalm*
What sources do I have to site?? All that is recorded on how a Tiger performed is all on youtube, film of Tigers killing tanks one hit, armor penetration, etc. There's absolutely no reason why the Tiger should be like this. Youtube videos show documentary of anything you need, basically listening to a source instead of looking at it on a site, what difference does it make? The same info is given no matter what site it is. Look anything up on youtube on Tiger tank and you tell me what's different to what you would read in a book or any other website.
(http://img13.abload.de/img/fpx2wn.gif)
-
The point is why the M4 shrugged off two hits from the Tiger.
:aok
Any luck duplicating the shot?
-
What do you mean M4 didn't have thin armor??!! Explain why they were recorded to have thin armor and caught fire easily.
The tendency of the early Shermans to catch fire had nothing to do with their armor thickness. The tendency to catch fire was a direct result of how the ammo was stored, once the Shermans incorporated a 'wet stowage' system, the problem of the fires was greatly reduced.
Military channel vs History Channel. Military tells what was actually recorded by facts of it. History channel shows was it "supposed" to be on it, not showing accurate facts/data.
The Military Channel is a TV channel just like the History Channel is no more accurate. Using the Military Channel as the end all of end all sources is just dumb. As entertainment, the Military Channel is good, as a source of accurate information, well, it's not as good.
That's the problem with you and a few others. You watch a show on the Military Channel, History Channel and now (giggle) YouTube and accept what you see as the gospel truth and then ignore those that have the accurate data because it doesn't mesh with what you saw on TV. Just looking at any of those sites that Lusche had linked to will easily show that you're incorrect but for some reason you just dismiss it because it wasn't on TV. If Lusche was to video tape him looking at the penetration and armor thickness tables and then posted it on YouTube, would you then accept the correct data? I mean, after all it was a video on YouTube so it must be accurate.
ack-ack
-
1 Tiger surviving 227 hits is NOT a case study for the performance of all Tigers. If you believe that all Tigers should perform this way then I'm challenging you to cite your sources besides the YouTube video.
You're just going to end up feeling you're talking to a brick wall. He uses just one example as a case study for the rest of that type, for example he uses the service record of a single Spitfire Mk XVI's and applies it to all of the Spitfire Mk XVIs ever produced to show the Spitfire Mk XVI only had 20 odd hours of combat. He's doing the same here with the Tiger.
ack-ack
-
I think I will visit my old University Professors and tell them they can screw all their "scientific stuff" they tried to teach me, like critical analyzing, reading books, searching for primary sources
Youtube is it , baby!
Who cares if it's a M4A3 with a 75 or 76mm gun... can 1mm make any difference? TV says it's a Sherman, and it sucks, no more info needed! Who cares if the Sherman has similar armor as it's contemporaries in the same class, like the T-34 and Panzer IV - it's thin and it sucks! Early Shermans did like to burn... who cares if that was corrected? It's the Ronson!
It's all true, cause it was on TV! Reading sources is for weaklings only! Only nerds double check their data! :x
-
:aok
Any luck duplicating the shot?
No it doesn't work in Offline...don't tank much online.
-
No it doesn't work in Offline...don't tank much online.
Just for the record, I tried my luck and was able to get a bunch of ricochets and non penetrating hits at D334 if I aimed for certain parts of the turret of an 76(w)
-
The tendency of the early Shermans to catch fire had nothing to do with their armor thickness. The tendency to catch fire was a direct result of how the ammo was stored, once the Shermans incorporated a 'wet stowage' system, the problem of the fires was greatly reduced.
The Military Channel is a TV channel just like the History Channel is no more accurate. Using the Military Channel as the end all of end all sources is just dumb. As entertainment, the Military Channel is good, as a source of accurate information, well, it's not as good.
That's the problem with you and a few others. You watch a show on the Military Channel, History Channel and now (giggle) YouTube and accept what you see as the gospel truth and then ignore those that have the accurate data because it doesn't mesh with what you saw on TV. Just looking at any of those sites that Lusche had linked to will easily show that you're incorrect but for some reason you just dismiss it because it wasn't on TV. If Lusche was to video tape him looking at the penetration and armor thickness tables and then posted it on YouTube, would you then accept the correct data? I mean, after all it was a video on YouTube so it must be accurate.
ack-ack
Found a website to finally show you that Tiger can't be killed from short range, even from a 76mm Sherman.
http://www.2worldwar2.com/sherman.htm
This has to be some info somewhere from WWII records, doesn't match what Lusche's chart says, which is AH standards by the way again, and lets leave spit 16 out of this forum huh ak? Lets focus on M4 and Tiger
-
Like I also stated, the VC Firefly model or M4 75/76 that would have to get really close in on the Tiger were the only threats. Another threat that killed Tigers were none other than bombs of course. The Sherman VC Firefly was the only American/British tank that could kill the Tiger from a great distance, only competition on the battlefield, no other american tank had the ability like the Firefly.
-
Found a website to finally show you that Tiger can't be killed from short range, even from a 76mm Sherman.
http://www.2worldwar2.com/sherman.htm
This has to be some info somewhere from WWII records, doesn't match what Lusche's chart says, which is AH standards by the way again, and lets leave spit 16 out of this forum huh ak? Lets focus on M4 and Tiger
Okay, it seems you didn't even read what the article said.
an inferior 75mm or 76mm gun which simply could not penetrate the front armor of the German Tiger tanks even from short range
Yes, the Tiger I was a very tough tank and almost invulnerable to most tanks shooting normal armor piercing rounds or beyond 800 meters. However, it was possible at close ranges for a Sherman to knock out a Tiger I by hitting it in the areas where the armor is thinner, the sides and especially the rear (engine) area. In North Africa when the Shermans (75mm version) first encountered the Tigers is when the tactic of using 5 Sherman tanks to engage a Tiger was developed. That tactic was born more out of the fact of the deadliness of the 88mm gun rather than how tough it was to knock out. The surviving Shermans would then target the sides and area area hoping to knock it out. It must have worked because the 75mm Shermans did triumph from time to time over the Tiger I, though at a tremendous price. The 76mm Sherman tanks had a little bit easier time because by the time the 76mm Sherman encountered the Tiger I, it was in Normandy and combat encounters were usually at a much closer range than they were in North Africa. In addition, the 76mm Shermans were able to use the HVAP round which made it easier for the 76mm Shermans to knock out a Tiger at close ranges to hits from the sides and rear area.
This is a picture of a Tiger I tank that was knocked out by a M4A3 75mm Sherman tank from the 18 Armoured Regiment, 4 Armoured Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division in Italy. As you can read in the captio, it was their first Tiger I kill.
(http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-2Ita/WH2-2ItaP016a(h280).jpg)
While not a Sherman, this Tiger I tank was destroyed by a 75mm round fired from a Cromwell tank. The Cromwell fired from behind the Tiger I and the 75mm shell penetrated through the hatch in the back of the turret. If you look close at the image, you can actually see the hole in the hatch where the round penetrated. Most likely, the Cromwell was firing a HVAP type round.
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/852/polestiger000214zw.jpg)
Like I also stated, the VC Firefly model or M4 75/76 that would have to get really close in on the Tiger were the only threats. Another threat that killed Tigers were none other than bombs of course. The Sherman VC Firefly was the only American/British tank that could kill the Tiger from a great distance, only competition on the battlefield, no other american tank had the ability like the Firefly.
There was the 90mm GMC M36 tank destroyer that was introduced in fall of 1944 that was able to knock out both Panther and Tiger I tanks at close and long ranges with its 90mm main gun.
There was also the Pershing and Super Pershing tanks. The Pershing was equal to, if not superior to the Tiger I tank and could easily match it in a one on one engagement at either close or long ranges. In fact, the Pershing out be able to kill it at a longer range than the Tiger would be able to fire at the Pershing. The Super Pershing was undeniably far superior to the Tiger I in every single shape or form and like the Pershing, the Super Pershing would have easily been able to destroy a Tiger I at any range with a single shot. If the Super Pershing was able to defeat a King Tiger in an urban engagement and survive hits from not only the King Tiger but a Panther as well, just imagine the devastation it could hand out to a Tiger I. I'm sure there are some very old Tiger I tank crews that are very happy they never ran into a Super Pershing, though sadly, I know of one King Tiger and Panther crew that wish they never ran into one.
So, as you can see, other than the Firefly there were at least 3 different tanks that were able to defeat the Tiger I at long ranges.
ack-ack
-
IMO regardless if it took 227 hits or not and returned, it should take more than 1. But still that is not the point. The point is why the M4 shrugged off two hits from the Tiger.
angle of shot fired and amount of armor in the position hit. if you hit the front of the turret, you hit at least 89mm of armor without the mantlet and from an angle that could amount to over 100mm easily...
-
Snail again I shot at the hull not the turret.
-
Snail again I shot at the hull not the turret.
Did I claim otherwise?
-
I dunno you keep referring to bouncing off the turret when I am saying the hull below it...
-
Okay, it seems you didn't even read what the article said.
Yes, the Tiger I was a very tough tank and almost invulnerable to most tanks shooting normal armor piercing rounds or beyond 800 meters. However, it was possible at close ranges for a Sherman to knock out a Tiger I by hitting it in the areas where the armor is thinner, the sides and especially the rear (engine) area. In North Africa when the Shermans (75mm version) first encountered the Tigers is when the tactic of using 5 Sherman tanks to engage a Tiger was developed. That tactic was born more out of the fact of the deadliness of the 88mm gun rather than how tough it was to knock out. The surviving Shermans would then target the sides and area area hoping to knock it out. It must have worked because the 75mm Shermans did triumph from time to time over the Tiger I, though at a tremendous price. The 76mm Sherman tanks had a little bit easier time because by the time the 76mm Sherman encountered the Tiger I, it was in Normandy and combat encounters were usually at a much closer range than they were in North Africa. In addition, the 76mm Shermans were able to use the HVAP round which made it easier for the 76mm Shermans to knock out a Tiger at close ranges to hits from the sides and rear area.
This is a picture of a Tiger I tank that was knocked out by a M4A3 75mm Sherman tank from the 18 Armoured Regiment, 4 Armoured Brigade, 2nd New Zealand Division in Italy. As you can read in the captio, it was their first Tiger I kill.
(http://www.nzetc.org/etexts/WH2-2Ita/WH2-2ItaP016a(h280).jpg)
While not a Sherman, this Tiger I tank was destroyed by a 75mm round fired from a Cromwell tank. The Cromwell fired from behind the Tiger I and the 75mm shell penetrated through the hatch in the back of the turret. If you look close at the image, you can actually see the hole in the hatch where the round penetrated. Most likely, the Cromwell was firing a HVAP type round.
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/852/polestiger000214zw.jpg)
There was the 90mm GMC M36 tank destroyer that was introduced in fall of 1944 that was able to knock out both Panther and Tiger I tanks at close and long ranges with its 90mm main gun.
There was also the Pershing and Super Pershing tanks. The Pershing was equal to, if not superior to the Tiger I tank and could easily match it in a one on one engagement at either close or long ranges. In fact, the Pershing out be able to kill it at a longer range than the Tiger would be able to fire at the Pershing. The Super Pershing was undeniably far superior to the Tiger I in every single shape or form and like the Pershing, the Super Pershing would have easily been able to destroy a Tiger I at any range with a single shot. If the Super Pershing was able to defeat a King Tiger in an urban engagement and survive hits from not only the King Tiger but a Panther as well, just imagine the devastation it could hand out to a Tiger I. I'm sure there are some very old Tiger I tank crews that are very happy they never ran into a Super Pershing, though sadly, I know of one King Tiger and Panther crew that wish they never ran into one.
So, as you can see, other than the Firefly there were at least 3 different tanks that were able to defeat the Tiger I at long ranges.
ack-ack
:huh :lol I didn't read it? Ak, did you read the 3rd paragraph down where it talks about the M4 75/76 not being able to penetrate Tiger's frontal armor from short range? This is the fact I'm making, if spikes says he got killed in 1 shot from it while at a short range distance and it says that a 76mm Sherman can't do that from a 400-800 yrd distance, the hull has 100mm armor, something is obviously wrong with the penetration modeling from a hit by the 76mm Sherman. The 4th paragraph even tells that a Sherman 75 or 76 had to be really close the Tiger to kill it and if he didn't move fast enough that Tiger would kill him faster if he saw him, which is why in that picture of that Tiger destroyed is what I'm trying to say is the only way for a 75/76mm Sherman to kill it. Yes the Perishing tank was by far dominate to the Tiger from far range, but HTC hasn't added that tank for I have no idea why, mostly alot of tanks like the Panther, King Tiger, Tiger II, and the M-18.
-
I dunno you keep referring to bouncing off the turret when I am saying the hull below it...
Here spikes, for you and Lusche to look at, I found a site for the armor of the 76mm Sherman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman
Near the way bottom it says what kind of armor that the 76mm Sherman had, frontal hull and turret armor, side turret, etc. It says that most it had on the front was from 64-76mm frontal armor. The side of the turret had 50mm. The hull had 51mm armor. It's all there for you guys to take a look at.
-
I think this question could be answered if HTC would let us know what round the Tiger and the M4 is firing. Like the T34 both the Tiger and the M4 had different AP rounds. If we knew this data then the penetration data could be zeroed in on and then tactics adjusted accordingly.
BigKev
-
While not a Sherman, this Tiger I tank was destroyed by a 75mm round fired from a Cromwell tank. The Cromwell fired from behind the Tiger I and the 75mm shell penetrated through the hatch in the back of the turret. If you look close at the image, you can actually see the hole in the hatch where the round penetrated. Most likely, the Cromwell was firing a HVAP type round.
And what does that have to do with Tigers failing to kill Sherman's, ANY TYPE, with point blank frontal hits??
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/852/polestiger000214zw.jpg)
also, this pic u have is interesting...you say the Crom hit it from behind, hit the tiger at the back of the turret, yet the turret is pointing to the rear.
I put it to you that the Tiger WAS NOT destroyed by the Crom otherwise, the crew would not have bothered to traverse the turret, as they too, as you put it, would be destroyed!
you guys should go rent Kelly's Heroes, it has all you need to know about the fear Sherman crews had with the Tiger!
-
Kelly's Heroes included the destruction of two tigers by a lucky sherman 75mm... why would that show anything TRUE about WWII???
-
Kelly's Heroes included the destruction of two tigers by a lucky sherman 76mm... why would that show anything TRUE about WWII???
Fixed.
-
And what does that have to do with Tigers failing to kill Sherman's, ANY TYPE, with point blank frontal hits??
Wow...another genius. If you had read THRASH99's post that I was replying to, he was claiming that the Tiger was impervious to shots at close ranges from tanks fielding a 75mm or 76mm main gun. It wasn't until I pointed out his comprehension error of the article that he posted, did he finally correct himself and change his claim from all close range shots to 'frontal'.
The picture of the Tiger I that was killed by a Cromwell just reinforces the point that THRASH99 was incorrect with his original assertion that the Tiger I was impervious to close ranged shots.
also, this pic u have is interesting...you say the Crom hit it from behind, hit the tiger at the back of the turret, yet the turret is pointing to the rear.
I put it to you that the Tiger WAS NOT destroyed by the Crom otherwise, the crew would not have bothered to traverse the turret, as they too, as you put it, would be destroyed!
You're incorrect. The photo is of a Tiger I tank that was destroyed by Polish Cromwell tank from the 10th Mounted Rifles on 8/15/1944 near the village called Jort. You can easily look up the date and the location to read the account of the battle that day.
Since the only way that Tiger could have been knocked out was by another tank and the only other tanks there besides the German ones were the Cromwells that belonged to Poles of the 10th Mounted Rifles.
As for the direction the main gun is pointing, are you seriously using that as proof to support your claim? Considering the turret was destroyed on that Tiger, it is almost certain a result of the hit by the Cromwell.
you guys should go rent Kelly's Heroes, it has all you need to know about the fear Sherman crews had with the Tiger!
Great movie and one of the best buddy heist films ever to come out of Hollywood and that it's also one of the better war movies is an added bonus that makes the movie a classic.
ack-ack
-
Fixed.
hmm...my bad. just took another look at the tank. :aok
-
Kelly's Heroes???...why would that show anything TRUE about WWII???
Because:
"It's a wasted trip baby, nobody said anything about locking horns with no Tigahs!
A Tigah's got one weak point, and that's it's ass, you gotta hit point blank and you gotta hit it from behind!"
@Ack Ack
your post states "A" Cromwell fired "A" 75mm and knocked out THIS tiger. the crom shot FROM BEHIND the tiger piercing THE REAR of the turret.
IF the gun on the tiger is pointing TO THE REAR and the crom approached FROM THE REAR, how is the crom supposed to hit THE REAR OF THE TURRET of THIS tiger when it is now pointing towards the front?
-
Because:
"It's a wasted trip baby, nobody said anything about locking horns with no Tigahs!
A Tigah's got one weak spot, and that's it's ass, you gotta hit point blank and you gotta hit it from behind!"
@Ack Ack
your post states "A" Cromwell fired "A" 75mm and knocked out THIS tiger. the crom shot FROM BEHIND the tiger piercing THE REAR of the turret.
IF the gun on the tiger is pointing TO THE REAR and the crom approached FROM THE REAR, how is the crom supposed to hit THE REAR OF THE TURRET of THIS tiger when it is now pointing towards the front?
The Tigers were attacked by two companies of the 10th Mounted Rifles from two sides. If you want the full details, just search for the Battle of Jort on August 15, 1944.
ack-ack
-
your post states "A" Cromwell fired "A" 75mm and knocked out THIS tiger. the crom shot FROM BEHIND the tiger piercing THE REAR of the turret.
IF the gun on the tiger is pointing TO THE REAR and the crom approached FROM THE REAR, how is the crom supposed to hit THE REAR OF THE TURRET of THIS tiger when it is now pointing towards the front?
mmm...let's see... the Tiger's turret appears to be pointing to its own rear, (unless you're going to argue that the front of a Tiger was angled at 90degrees) slightly to its own 5 oclock position, and the hole appears to be on the backside of the turret. I would guess that the weapon that put the hole in the turret, then, had to be at the 7 oclock position of the Tiger. So, yeah... the shot was taken at the rear of the Tiger.
-
The Tigers were attacked by two companies of the 10th Mounted Rifles from two sides. If you want the full details, just search for the Battle of Jort on August 15, 1944.
ack-ack
so now ur saying this tiger was attacked by a companie and not by a single tank!
and where in the pic is the entrance hole?
thanks
-
so now ur saying this tiger was attacked by a companie and not by a single tank!
and where in the pic is the entrance hole?
thanks
The German Tigers (there were 4 Tigers along with other German APVs) were engaged by two companies of the 10th Mounted Rifles and a battle commenced. One of the companies managed to get behind the Tigers, resulting in one Tiger being completely knocked out (entire crew killed, which is the Tiger in the picture I posted) and a 2nd Tiger was damaged and abandoned in place. Because the Tigers were now being attacked from two sides, they were forced, along with the other German APVs were to withdraw, exposing them completely to the Polish company to their front. The remaining Tigers were able to knock out 3 Cromwells and successfully fought their way out.
In the picture I posted, you see 4 soldiers climbing on the Tiger and inspecting it, that was teh crew of the Cromwell that knocked it out. If you look at the back hatch (the piece the man is sittingo n) on the turret, you'll see the impact hole. Again, as for the direction of the turret, it could have been a result of the impact to the turret.
Maybe if I was to make a video of it and put it up on YouTube, it will be believable?
ack-ack
-
Maybe if I was to make a video of it and put it up on YouTube, it will be believable?
:rofl
That's funny right there, I don't care who you are- that's just funny...
-
WHAT THE MAN IS SITTING ON!!!!!! :O
The man on the far left of the photo looking at the camera man, yes?
Seriously dude, you're on drugs...right!
You clearly know nothing about Tiger tanks?
THAT...IS...NOT...A...HATCH!
that's a storage compartment, like its twin on the other side.
the hatch, in your photo, is the light white colored portion of the photo to THAT soldiers left.
and as you can see in the photo, it is untouched!
and since you mentioned the tube, why don't you go here and watch this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzLRbDzk3mk&feature=related
go to min 1:27 and see the REAL hatch. The escape hatch, that is.
or this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_5c0mBXok&feature=related
and go to min 1:42 and 2:15
Face it ack...you just don't know what your talking about do you!!
oh, and i did google the battle, all i got was a pdf about the units history and no mention of tigers.
where did you get this photo please?
In the picture I posted, you see 4 soldiers climbing on the Tiger and inspecting it, that was teh crew of the Cromwell that knocked it out. If you look at the back hatch (the piece the man is sittingo n) on the turret, you'll see the impact hole. Again, as for the direction of the turret, it could have been a result of the impact to the turret.
Maybe if I was to make a video of it and put it up on YouTube, it will be believable?
ack-ack
-
This has gone beyond the scope of a bug report. Please take the discussion to the General.
- Sudz