Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Belial on July 01, 2010, 09:22:02 PM
-
Seems a bit silly to put it at 1 perk...if it needs perked which I don't think it does make it at least 3. It is far superior to the t34-85 as modeled now and the t34 costs more.
-
Not that I think a perk tag was really necessary, but a perk price of one probably won't change much in usage at all, as the (76)'s superiority over the Panzer is quite significant (Right now, it's still the same usage ratio as before... but maybe players did not notice the new perk cost yet? ;))
-
Seems a bit silly to put it at 1 perk...if it needs perked which I don't think it does make it at least 3. It is far superior to the t34-85 as modeled now and the t34 costs more.
:aok
-
Not that I think a perk tag was really necessary, but a perk price of one probably won't change much in usage at all, as the (76)'s superiority over the Panzer is quite significant (Right now, it's still the same usage ratio as before... but maybe players did not notice the new perk cost yet? ;))
Exactly what I was saying last night. It'd be interesting to see the Spit 16 perked at 1. It seems you can get 1 perk by killing some town buildings and everyone is whining about it being perked.
-
IMO, there should be a 1pt or 2 pt perk on about a dozen aircraft and gv's in the game.
The M4A3W 76mm is just the beginning.
-
The 76 and the 85 are both 1 perk pt. So they are even as far as perks. I do not think the 76 is any better then the panzer, it is just hard to find the 76 or the firefly. Plus the 76 at long distance is not very good it takes many hits at long distances to take out a tank. Plus you do not want to take on the 76 in a frontal attack, it is very hard to kill that way just like most tank except the 75. But this is just what I have seen with using both the panzer before the 76 was in the game and after using the 76. I have die many times in the 76 with being hit with one shot. It is all where you hit any of the tanks on how easy they go down. I have learned over time where you can hit different tanks and I have learn that I would not like to take any but the 75 on in a frontal attack. But it is just something I have pick up with practice and a lot of dieing.
-
I don't see the reasoning behind perking the 76. Its not like its doing any real damage. I mean the Firefly was FAR too powerful for its perk price, but the M4(76) is fine. BARELY superior to the panzer.
So I guess any tank with a good gun and decent armor must be perked.
-
I do not think the 76 is any better then the panzer,
It is. The considerable higher rate of fire alone is a distinct advantage in AH.
Also compare Panzer and M4A3(76)W K/Ds vs all other tanks: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291985.0.html. The Sherman holds a 200-300% better K/D vs any other tank but the Tiger compared to the panzer
-
Too many of the tanks in AH are perked now. 50% are perked. Imagine the top 50% of fighters and bombers all being perked to one degree or another.
Unperk the M4A3(76) and T-34/85. Let them sit at the top of the unperked tank food chain, leaving the Sherman VC Firely and Tiger I as real perk tanks. Things like the Panther V G, Tiger II, IS-2 and M-26 can always be added to increase the perk spending options for tanks.
-
1 perk. Big deal.
-
1 perk. Big deal.
QFT
I never noticed the old perk on the Firefly either.
1 perk? Were all the country numbers even at the time or is this like a 100 perk 262?
Quite frankly, I haven't looked nor noticed it being perked.
wrongway
-
1 perk? Were all the country numbers even at the time or is this like a 100 perk 262?
No, it's really just one perk.
-
QFT
I never noticed the old perk on the Firefly either.
1 perk? Were all the country numbers even at the time or is this like a 100 perk 262?
Quite frankly, I haven't looked nor noticed it being perked.
wrongway
I believe it doesn't fluctuate.
-
The M4A3W 76mm and the Pzr IV are very similar in all attributes but one: rate of fire. The rate of fire and the effectiveness of the 76mm AP round from the M1A1 cannon will win vs the Pzr 75mm KwK40 L/48 in a shot-swap battle. The M4A3W 76mm has a %33 faster rate of fire (M4 = 3.6 seconds, Pzr IV = 5.4 seconds). The penetration abilities of each round are too similar to give either one a definitive advantage, likewise the armor of each is close enough to put them in the "equal" category.
The rate of fire is far more important than most people realize, imo. If people take into consideration it take a 3 shot volley, typically, to range and connect exactly where you want the shot to go, just how fast can a Tiger, or Firefly, or T34/85mm do the trick? The M4A3 variants can do 3 shots in just under 11 seconds. The T34/85mm does 3 shots in 20+ seconds. The Tiger does 3 shots in just under 19 seconds.
-
It is. The considerable higher rate of fire alone is a distinct advantage in AH.
Also compare Panzer and M4A3(76)W K/Ds vs all other tanks: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,291985.0.html. The Sherman holds a 200-300% better K/D vs any other tank but the Tiger compared to the panzer
This is likely because there are so many more M4's. I'm willing to bet that if there were just as many panzers as M4's, that it would be closer to a 50/50 KTD. I suppose if HTC is willing, we could hold an unofficial test, and have one group of tanks (say 50) up panzers and the other up M4's at a double spawn base. See what the KTD's say.
-
This is likely because there are so many more M4's. I'm willing to bet that if there were just as many panzers as M4's, that it would be closer to a 50/50 KTD. I suppose if HTC is willing, we could hold an unofficial test, and have one group of tanks (say 50) up panzers and the other up M4's at a double spawn base. See what the KTD's say.
Guess why there are so many more m4's? Particularly with GV, players tend to select the tank with the best free tank.
Also I don't see the reasoning behind the argument "more M4s = better K/D". Care to explain? (More kills? Yes. But also more deaths.)
And the MA IS an unofficial test. We have a great number of players using both tanks in every possible situation. Both tanks were free, so they were being used in the same way.
And I think you still underrate the MASSIVE significance of having a much higher rate of fire. When two tanks have about the same armor level & gun power, the ROF can be a dominating factor. Most tank fights are not "first shot kill" ones.
-
Also I don't see the reasoning behind the argument "more M4s = better K/D". Care to explain? (More kills? Yes. But also more deaths.)
Simple, more M4's means that when they DO encounter a panzer, most focus on that because it is a rarity. I've seen it at V85 in the compello map: when a T-34/76 spawns, the other tanks last longer, because the T-34 is drawing the majority of the fire. Not because it is dangerous, but because it is uncommon to see one (well it WAS; they've made a come back).
-
Simple, more M4's means that when they DO encounter a panzer, most focus on that because it is a rarity.
Usually fire concentrates on biggest threat.
Also note that the K/D advantage of M4A3(76)W compared to the Panzer is working against ALL tanks.
(http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/7320/tankkdmatrix125.jpg)
Se how the (76) does significantly better against every tank.
-
It is also who in the 76's and who in the panzer!! There is a lot of factors that go into stats. So you can not just look at stats. I like the 76 and the Firefly because it is harder to see and it has a more accurate gun. But that could be only in my mind.
-
It is also who in the 76's and who in the panzer!! There is a lot of factors that go into stats. So you can not just look at stats. I like the 76 and the Firefly because it is harder to see and it has a more accurate gun. But that could be only in my mind.
With 32500 deaths for the IV and 51700 for the Sherman, and both being free, it is a stretch to say that any individual player or group of players could be having much of an effect unlike, say, the Tempest or P-38G.
I do think you are correct to a point about the color, but I have to agree with Snailman that rate of fire must be the true tipper. Speaking for me personally it is exactly the reason I like the 76 over the other tanks. My aim sucks -- I need the extra shots. :o
-
There is only one way to get to the bottom of this. SCREENSHOT!!!! Do a GV screenshot from the European theater, maybe nice open fields, no bomb****s. panzer/tigers vs m4 75/76 and firefly. Of course the # of tigers and fireflies would be minimal. Just a thought.
<S>
Speak.
-
With the advent of the new m4's I would say the list of gv's from best to worst goes..
Tiger
Sherman Firefly
T34-85 using HVAP you can devastate a Tiger in 1 shot.
M4a3-76 Must be close and hit Tiger perfect.
Panzer, nearly equal to 76 because it can 1shot a Tiger more often.
m4-75
M8
t34-76
But if the mra3-76 deserves a perk price it's because it is modeled wrong and tougher than it should be IMO.
-
There is only one way to get to the bottom of this. SCREENSHOT!!!! Do a GV screenshot from the European theater, maybe nice open fields, no bomb****s. panzer/tigers vs m4 75/76 and firefly. Of course the # of tigers and fireflies would be minimal. Just a thought.
<S>
Speak.
No really a screenshot:
(http://images.stanzapub.com/readers/2009/04/17/fireflies_1.jpg)
With the advent of the new m4's I would say the list of gv's from best to worst goes..
Tiger
Sherman Firefly
T34-85 using HVAP you can devastate a Tiger in 1 shot.
M4a3-76 Must be close and hit Tiger perfect.
Panzer, nearly equal to 76 because it can 1shot a Tiger more often.
m4-75
M8
t34-76
But if the mra3-76 deserves a perk price it's because it is modeled wrong and tougher than it should be IMO.
RE: M4A3-76
From:http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/ (http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/)
The first to actually receive the tank with the new armament was, ironically, the Soviet Union who found them satisfactory. Hero of the Soviet Union, Dmitri Loza, writes in his book Commanding the Red Army’s Sherman Tanks how they performed well on the Eastern Front. Soviet testing against two captured Pz.Kpfw VI Ausf. B “Royal Tiger” tanks showed that the 76-mm M1 could penetrate the Royal Tigers’ side plates at distances 1.5 to 2 times greater than the native Soviet 85-mm gun which became the armament for the famous T-34-85 tank.
wrongway
-
No really a screenshot:
(http://images.stanzapub.com/readers/2009/04/17/fireflies_1.jpg)
I meant snapshot.......good thing i only have 2 1/2 weeks left to keep embarrassing myself here.
<S>
RE: M4A3-76
From:http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/ (http://socyberty.com/military/m4-sherman-firepower/)
wrongway
-
as a dedicated GVer, Lusche is correct in pointing out the higher RoF as an appealing feature of the M4-76 (and 75).
the ability to quickly re-aim and fire before your opponent can mean the difference between wining and losing an engagement. the turrets also have a nice rate of traverse to bring quickly bring the gun to bear on ther target.
-
With the advent of the new m4's I would say the list of gv's from best to worst goes..
Tiger
Sherman Firefly
T34-85 using HVAP you can devastate a Tiger in 1 shot.
M4a3-76 Must be close and hit Tiger perfect.
Panzer, nearly equal to 76 because it can 1shot a Tiger more often.
m4-75
M8
t34-76
But if the mra3-76 deserves a perk price it's because it is modeled wrong and tougher than it should be IMO.
First of, the T-34/76 is above the M4, due to its speed, and the fact that his has HVAP.
M8 is at the bottom of the pile, because, while its fast, any sort of cannon will just chew it up. Even a wirb can cause problems for it.
And its an M4A3(76)W. Its not supposed to light up as easy as the M4A3(75). The W stands for "wet storage", which means the ammunition is less likely to explode in the event of a shell hit.
-
Ther are numerous sources that point out that at distances longer than 1000m (think "12" on your gun range finder), the HVAP projectiles fired by both the 76mm and 85mm T-34's are less effective than the standard AP round. The HVAP ammo, especially in the T34x vs Tiger, is a non issue for most of the battles since ranges are usually 1200 yards +.
BTW... you might want to explain how to read your chart, Loosh. I'd e willing to bet many are not uderstanding just hom to interpret what the numbers mean. ;)
-
With the advent of the new m4's I would say the list of gv's from best to worst goes..
Tiger
Sherman Firefly
T34-85 using HVAP you can devastate a Tiger in 1 shot.
M4a3-76 Must be close and hit Tiger perfect.
Panzer, nearly equal to 76 because it can 1shot a Tiger more often.
m4-75
M8
t34-76
But if the mra3-76 deserves a perk price it's because it is modeled wrong and tougher than it should be IMO.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if one compares the actual AP penetration charts of the tanks to the in game performance, I'd say they are closer to the real deal than what people give them credit for. I'd take the M4A3W 76mm over the T34/85mm vs a Tiger any day. The superior AP round (a nod goes to the T34/85mm HVAP within 1000m), faster reload, and faster turret traverse all lend me to getting more critical hits on that Tiger than if I was in the T34/85. The only advantage the T34/85mm has over the M4A3/76 is the faster speed to menouver to a flanking shot. But, any decent Tiger driver will pivot the entire Tiger to keep the front pointed at the T-34/85mm.
It is difficult to place any tank at the top unconditionally. Each tank has an achillies heel that is often over-looked. 1v1, the Tiger has the best chance of being king of the hill. However, if you are rescueing squad mates, or running to cover a map room from a distance spawn, the need for speed grows and the T34x and M8 vault to the top of the list.
-
Loon, you do know that the T-34's have the fastest turret travers in the game?
And it depends on if they have the base defended or are just barely holding and trying to get an M3 to the map room before they get kicked off the base. In the first case, you will want the Tiger, especially if they have a firefly or a Tiger of their own.
You would usually be correct though, that the M8 and T-34 would be the better choice though, as they rarely think of anything past camping the hanger, and guarding from the base.
-
Loon, you do know that the T-34's have the fastest turret travers in the game?
And it depends on if they have the base defended or are just barely holding and trying to get an M3 to the map room before they get kicked off the base. In the first case, you will want the Tiger, especially if they have a firefly or a Tiger of their own.
You would usually be correct though, that the M8 and T-34 would be the better choice though, as they rarely think of anything past camping the hanger, and guarding from the base.
You're correct, my mistake. I didn't dig into that set of details (turret traverse rates) like I should have.
-
The K/D matrix pretty conclusively shows the T-34/76 to be superior to the M4A3(75).
-
The K/D matrix pretty conclusively shows the T-34/76 to be superior to the M4A3(75).
Really? I must be reading it wrong then. The T34/76 column shows lower K/D than most of the corresponding values in the M4A3(75) column (except vs the T34/76 and, strangely, the M4A3(75)).
-
The t34-85 Hvap round is far more effective than the m4a3-76 round at any distance for killing a Tiger.
Combined with it's speed and turret traverse it is a better tank.
Sure the m4a3-76 is a panzer killing machine, but it's like throwing snowballs at a Tiger unless your point blank and even then some ricochet.
-
The t34-85 Hvap round is far more effective than the m4a3-76 round at any distance for killing a Tiger.
Combined with it's speed and turret traverse it is a better tank.
Sure the m4a3-76 is a panzer killing machine, but it's like throwing snowballs at a Tiger unless your point blank and even then some ricochet.
I challenge you to find me a legit source showing the penetration abilities of the T34/85mm HVAP surpassing that of the standard AP from an M4A3(W) 76mm at longer ranges. So far, I have not found one single chart that displays any advantage for the 85mm HVAP beyond (actually somewhere prior to) 1000m, or 1094 yards, and up close (500m) the advantage is hardly worth mentioning compared to the 76mm AP of the M4A3. The HVAP round really shows its advantage at less than 500m vs the standard 85mm AP, the HVAP gains 30mm more armor penetration at 100m, and the advantage slowly declines until around 800 yards, Im guessing. The gaps in all the charts I've read are too big to show the exact cross over from advantage to disadvantage for the HVAP.
One online source shows the following stats for armor penetration:
M4A3 76mm AP: 500m = 104mm; 1000m = 83mm; 1500m = 67mm; 2000m = 54mm
T34/85mm HVAP: 500m = 107mm; 1000m = 76mm; 1500m = 54mm; 2000m = 39mm
T34/85mm AP: 500m = 100mm; 1000m = 81mm; 1500m = 71mm; 2000m = 65mm
Now compare the Tiger's armor to those ranges and you'll see that the T34/85mm's gun is no better off vs a Tiger, unless almost point blank range with HVAP, compared to the M4A3(W) 76mm's AP.
As far as the T34/85mm being a "better" tank, that is matter of opinion in every which way but loose. The quick reload times of the M4A3 is not to be over-looked, like-wise, the speed of the T34x is an often over-looked attribute. Roll the dice, and play the yardage. The T34's frontal armor will be its ultimate saving grace in a stand off pot shot battle. To me, comparing the effectiveness of the penetration capabilities is a moot point, they are too similar. It is the other attributes of the tank that will stand out instead based on what the role is that is needed to be filled and/or the mission that needs to be accomplished.
FWIW, it is one of those two tanks that I take %90 of the time in the MA. ;)
-
The t34-85 Hvap round is far more effective than the m4a3-76 round at any distance for killing a Tiger.
Combined with it's speed and turret traverse it is a better tank.
Sure the m4a3-76 is a panzer killing machine, but it's like throwing snowballs at a Tiger unless your point blank and even then some ricochet.
I've one shot killed a tiger from the front at 500yds. I wouldn't really call that "point blank" since its better to get in close when fighting the heavy armor. Hell, I've gotten hits on a tiger at 1500yds or so; didn't really do anything, but they didn't ricochet either.
-
I've one shot killed a tiger from the front at 500yds. I wouldn't really call that "point blank" since its better to get in close when fighting the heavy armor. Hell, I've gotten hits on a tiger at 1500yds or so; didn't really do anything, but they didn't ricochet either.
video please
-
I guess there's no arguing with you guys and your charts...
I mean It's my first day in a gv :aok
-
I guess there's no arguing with you guys and your charts...
I mean It's my first day in a gv :aok
Aren't you the one that even doubted tank rounds are losing energy over distance? ;)
-
Don't have a film Fudgums, I accidently downloaded the wrong patch and had to re instal AH (I don't back up my films). However, I have been using auto record, so if I ever have the fortune of having that happen again, then I will have a film.
-
When talking 76MM Sherman's, you do not need to add the W, since all 76MM gunned Sherman's where built wet, with the improved later hulls.
The 75 Sherman's could be wet or dry depending on the build date.
Unlike a lot of US weapons, the A1 A2 A3 etc designations for Sherman's do no indicate later models, but different Engine types.
-
GtoRA2, you must remember that a lot of M4's were officially up gunned to the 76mm cannon. And the M4A2 was an export model.
-
When talking 76MM Sherman's, you do not need to add the W, since all 76MM gunned Sherman's where built wet, with the improved later hulls.
The 75 Sherman's could be wet or dry depending on the build date.
Unlike a lot of US weapons, the A1 A2 A3 etc designations for Sherman's do no indicate later models, but different Engine types.
Hmm... thought the hull and turrets had a hand in the new designations, too?
-
Hmm... thought the hull and turrets had a hand in the new designations, too?
There were some hull variations between in the original M4A1, M4A2 etc. designations, but that was because of process used (A1 used a cast vs. welded hull) and engine (A4s had longer hulls due to the size of the engine). A1s, A2s, A3s, etc. were all rolling off assembly lines at the same time.
Some things like turret and suspension modifications could get an "E" designation of some sort, the best known of which would be the "E8" designation that had the HVSS suspension, 76mm gun and somewhat upgraded armor.
Wiki has some decent background info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman_variants
-
GtoRA2, you must remember that a lot of M4's were officially up gunned to the 76mm cannon. And the M4A2 was an export model.
True, but I dont think these saw any real combat. It was very cramped stuffing the 76 into the smaller 75 turret. And if I recall right, they didnt really start doing it until late in the war. I am not sure how mant T23 turrets were removed from hulls on p
As trivia, the Shermans used in Kelly's Heroes are 75mm Shermans, (A3s I think) with 76MM guns installed. I bet the loading speed with the 76 in the smaller turret is way longer too.
-
How would having less room affect how fast you can shove shells into the breech to such a degree that the load time would be "way" longer? I could see it taking maybe 40-60% longer to load a shell, but it won't be like the T-34/76.
-
How would having less room affect how fast you can shove shells into the breech to such a degree that the load time would be "way" longer? I could see it taking maybe 40-60% longer to load a shell
50% slower ROF would be very much "way" longer. It's a considerable difference. (See current Shermans vs Panzer...)
-
50% slower ROF would be very much "way" longer. It's a considerable difference. (See current Shermans vs Panzer...)
Speaking of which, I know there was a thread debating the reload times for the 75mm and 76mm M4's. Did that go anywhere???
I have no clue as to the difference in the mechanics of the 75mm M3 and 76mm M1A1 cannons, but the weight and size of the shells alone would make a difference in how quickly they were handled. Ask any tanker. I did. :)
-
Speaking of which, I know there was a thread debating the reload times for the 75mm and 76mm M4's. Did that go anywhere???
Not really ;)
-
Well lusche, seeing as a 50% increase would be the panzer's reload time (currently second fastest in the game with the new M4's tied for first), I wouldn't really call that "way" longer. I mean what is the actual difference in reload times? It can't really be more than about a second (although I will admit that a second can count when you need to get that second shot in before he gets his turret on you).
-
I challenge you to find me a legit source showing the penetration abilities of the T34/85mm HVAP surpassing that of the standard AP from an M4A3(W) 76mm at longer ranges. So far, I have not found one single chart that displays any advantage for the 85mm HVAP beyond (actually somewhere prior to) 1000m, or 1094 yards, and up close (500m) the advantage is hardly worth mentioning compared to the 76mm AP of the M4A3. The HVAP round really shows its advantage at less than 500m vs the standard 85mm AP, the HVAP gains 30mm more armor penetration at 100m, and the advantage slowly declines until around 800 yards, Im guessing. The gaps in all the charts I've read are too big to show the exact cross over from advantage to disadvantage for the HVAP.
One online source shows the following stats for armor penetration:
M4A3 76mm AP: 500m = 104mm; 1000m = 83mm; 1500m = 67mm; 2000m = 54mm
T34/85mm HVAP: 500m = 107mm; 1000m = 76mm; 1500m = 54mm; 2000m = 39mm
T34/85mm AP: 500m = 100mm; 1000m = 81mm; 1500m = 71mm; 2000m = 65mm
Now compare the Tiger's armor to those ranges and you'll see that the T34/85mm's gun is no better off vs a Tiger, unless almost point blank range with HVAP, compared to the M4A3(W) 76mm's AP.
As far as the T34/85mm being a "better" tank, that is matter of opinion in every which way but loose. The quick reload times of the M4A3 is not to be over-looked, like-wise, the speed of the T34x is an often over-looked attribute. Roll the dice, and play the yardage. The T34's frontal armor will be its ultimate saving grace in a stand off pot shot battle. To me, comparing the effectiveness of the penetration capabilities is a moot point, they are too similar. It is the other attributes of the tank that will stand out instead based on what the role is that is needed to be filled and/or the mission that needs to be accomplished.
FWIW, it is one of those two tanks that I take %90 of the time in the MA. ;)
Stumbled on a thread in another forums that was having a debate similiar to this and someone in that thread posted the results of some testing the Yugoslav army did after the war comparing the T-35/85 with the M4A3(76). Basically, when comparing HVAR between the two tanks the Yugoslavs found that:
- HVAR rounds fired from the 76mm M1A1 was 10% more accurate than the ZiS-S-53 gun up to 1000meters and accuracy the same up to 1,500 meters
- Both HVAP rounds showed poor performance at ranges of 1,500 meters
On AP rounds:
- Accuracy the same up to 1,500 meters
- at ranges from 1,500 meters to 2,500 meters (maximum effective range firing AP rounds for both guns), the ZiS-S-53 was 20% more accurate
On He rounds:
- Accuracy the same up to 1,500 meters
- at ranges from 1,500 meters to 3,000 meters (maximum effective range firing HE rounds for both guns), the ZiS-S-53 was 20% more accurate
Gunsights were judged to be about the same, though the T-34/85 was credited with having a marginally better gunsight but the differences were judged to be insignificant.
Views were better in the Sherman but over all both tanks were considered poor.
Firing from the move was judged to be very poor for both tanks, with the Sherman being marginally superior in firing from a short halt.
In comparisons between guns, the ZiS-S-53 was judged to have better penetration than the M1A1 76mm but the difference was considered to be marginal.
all in all, seems like the T-84/85 and the M4A3(76) are relatively evenly matched.
Found some data on another forum comparing HVAR rounds for both tanks.
Russian 85mm HVAP
=================
Fired at 1040 m/s
0.65 kg tungsten core
27.94mm core diameter in American analysis, 27.77mm from Russian data.
100m, 1009 m/s, 165mm vertical target penetration
300m, 947 m/s, 150mm
500m, 887 m/s, 137mm
1000m, 744 m/s, 107mm
1500m, 614 m/s, 81mm
American 76mm HVAP
==================
Fired at 1037 m/s
1.765 kg tungsten core
38.1mm core diameter
100m, 1018 m/s, 240mm vertical target penetration
300m, 981 m/s, 226mm
500m, 939 m/s, 211mm
1000m, 848 m/s, 179mm
1500m, 756 m/s 149mm
In some tests conducted by the Soviets comparing the U.S. 76mm APCBC round to the Soviet 85mm APBC round in trials against a captured Tiger II found that the US round was significantly better in penetrating the Tiger II.
Comparing Russian 85mm HVAP to 85mm APBC against vertical targets results in:
100m: 165mm for HVAP, 139mm for APBC
500m: 137mm for HVAP, 123mm for APBC
1000m: 107mm for HVAP, 105mm for APBC
1500m: 81mm for HVAP, 91mm for APBC
For U.S. 76mm APCBC:
100m: 239mm for HVAP, 125mm for APCBC
500m: 208mm for HVAP, 116mm for APCBC
1000m: 175mm for HVAP, 106mm for APCBC
1500m: 147mm for HVAP, 97mm for APCBC
Source (http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?lang=en)
ack-ack
-
I've been looking around on the internet, and, according to Ack-Ack's data, the U.S. '76 using HVAP was slightly superior to the KwK 43 using standard AP, with 240mm of penetration at 100m compared to around 225mm (I saw from 211-235 on various sites) at 100m.
Is this correct or did one of these happen:
a) Ack-Ack make a typo
b) the sites I looked at screwed up
-
Just or clarification purposes... and this coincides with what we deal with in AH: all I mentioned was the T34/85mm HVAP vs the M4A3 76mm AP... I made no case for anything else. The T34/85mm HVAP is less effective beyond 1000m that its standard AP round. Likewise, the M4A3's 76mm AP is more effective as well beyond 1000m.
-
I've been looking around on the internet, and, according to Ack-Ack's data, the U.S. '76 using HVAP was slightly superior to the KwK 43 using standard AP, with 240mm of penetration at 100m compared to around 225mm (I saw from 211-235 on various sites) at 100m.
Is this correct or did one of these happen:
a) Ack-Ack make a typo
b) the sites I looked at screwed up
Go to the site and read the Soviet reports yourself instead of trying to have someone else do it for you.
ack-ack
-
Where exactly do I look? I'm not going to go looking for a page YOU should have posted a link to, instead of giving a link to the home page.
-
Where exactly do I look? I'm not going to go looking for a page YOU should have posted a link to, instead of giving a link to the home page.
It's called research, suggest you do some.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack, if you give a link to a home page that is 90% russian, with no indication of where to look for the source you got the info from, then its not giving a link to your source. I'm not going to wade through all that crap, so I can find the page you should have given a link to.
Its not 'research', its called 'looking for a specific page in a website'. At the very least, tell me WHERE TO LOOK within that website.
-
in
-
Ack-Ack, if you give a link to a home page that is 90% russian, with no indication of where to look for the source you got the info from, then its not giving a link to your source. I'm not going to wade through all that crap, so I can find the page you should have given a link to.
Its not 'research', its called 'looking for a specific page in a website'. At the very least, tell me WHERE TO LOOK within that website.
If you read the instructions on the site, each article on there can be put into Google translator...that's what I did. I'm not going to spoon feed you, learn to do things for yourself and stop being such a whiny, sniveling little brat.
ack-ack
-
Ack-Ack, if you give a link to a home page that is 90% russian, with no indication of where to look for the source you got the info from, then its not giving a link to your source. I'm not going to wade through all that crap, so I can find the page you should have given a link to.
Its not 'research', its called 'looking for a specific page in a website'. At the very least, tell me WHERE TO LOOK within that website.
I lol'd.
-
Its not 'research', its called 'looking for a specific page in a website'. At the very least, tell me WHERE TO LOOK within that website.
I think that was his point.
Go forth and search... for yourself.
Haven't we done this before with, "can somebody give me stats...?" or some such?
Or, continue to whine, again.
wrongway
-
I'd be happy to look for myself, and I did. MY point is, just add "its the fourth article down on the home page" or "the link on the right listed as 'T-34/85 medium tank'" after the link.