Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Chalenge on December 24, 2012, 02:55:21 AM
-
I asked a couple of squaddies to help me with testing the HE rounds in the TA. What we found is what I expected.
The Tiger tanks have the strongest HE of course. The Firefly though has the same HE as the M4A3-75 which should not be. Even if you accept that the Firefly ammunition eventually had capable HE during the war (I do not) it should not match the M4A3 ammo (HE-APC). Also the HE-APC and AP-APC ammunition should both be much more similar in trajectory unless of course the round is AP-solid which we should not since the APC ammunition is more common in American and Britsh tanks (even the Churchill used APC). The HE ammunition in this case was 1.5 lbs of explosive compound and four ounces of fuse cap and fuse.
The fuse of the HE ammunition could be set in two ways. It would either go off on impact (right-away fusing) or delay in which case it could be varied. If variable fusing is granted I wish we could set it before launch and not while in the field.
During the breakout at Normandy the 75mm gun was found to be inadequate for the job against Panthers and Tigers. So they upsized the guns to 76mm and the 17lber for the Firefly (this is the short history version). They quickly discovered that the HE in those tanks was inferior to the M4A3 75mm HE-APC and so they stopped loading the HE rounds in the British tanks. Even though the Americans still had HE they would often prefer to load 100% AP since they knew the HE would do nothing for them. So in effect the British and American both only used HE in the M4A3 75mm and this is why the 75mm remained on the battlefield.
So this is a multi-faceted wish.
1) No HE in the Firefly
2) No HE in the M4A3-76
3) gunsite and trajectory correction of M4A3-75
4) Cruiser Tank Mk III Challenger
-
You know you're going to have to repeatedly explain this in detail to someone. :banana:
-
Let's hope not.
-
Seems pretty clear to me, but an odd request from somebody who defended, IIRC, fantasy loadouts for the P-51D.
-
I asked a couple of squaddies to help me with testing the HE rounds in the TA. What we found is what I expected.
The Tiger tanks have the strongest HE of course. The Firefly though has the same HE as the M4A3-75 which should not be. Even if you accept that the Firefly ammunition eventually had capable HE during the war (I do not) it should not match the M4A3 ammo (HE-APC). Also the HE-APC and AP-APC ammunition should both be much more similar in trajectory unless of course the round is AP-solid which we should not since the APC ammunition is more common in American and Britsh tanks (even the Churchill used APC). The HE ammunition in this case was 1.5 lbs of explosive compound and four ounces of fuse cap and fuse.
The fuse of the HE ammunition could be set in two ways. It would either go off on impact (right-away fusing) or delay in which case it could be varied. If variable fusing is granted I wish we could set it before launch and not while in the field.
During the breakout at Normandy the 75mm gun was found to be inadequate for the job against Panthers and Tigers. So they upsized the guns to 76mm and the 17lber for the Firefly (this is the short history version). They quickly discovered that the HE in those tanks was inferior to the M4A3 75mm HE-APC and so they stopped loading the HE rounds in the British tanks. Even though the Americans still had HE they would often prefer to load 100% AP since they knew the HE would do nothing for them. So in effect the British and American both only used HE in the M4A3 75mm and this is why the 75mm remained on the battlefield.
So this is a multi-faceted wish.
1) No HE in the Firefly
2) No HE in the M4A3-76
3) gunsite and trajectory correction of M4A3-75
4) Cruiser Tank Mk III Challenger
WRONG! I'm glad I get to beat Looshy in telling you so, too. :rofl
The Tiger II, Tiger, and T34/85mm all have the same HE damage: 234 lbs
Next in line is the US M4A3/75mm at 178 lbs.
Then a whole list of vehicles that deliver 156 lbs: Panther, Pzr IV's, LVT-4 (although it fires the SAME shell as the M4/75mm :headscratch: ), and T34/76.
Next in line is the British Firefly with 140lbs of damage.
Last in line for tank HE are the M4A3/76 and M18 at 103 lbs of damage.
Take a look at the scaling. It either takes 2, 3, or 4 shots to destroy a typical OBJ in AH (building, ord bunker, radar tower, etc). HTC has given the M4/75 a nod (and rightfully so) and upped its damage to make it worth more to hit hangers, etc, but on the scale it is still a 2 hit/OBJ to destroy. On a different note, the M4/75mm armed with the Calliope will far surpass what the Tiger offers in terms of HE destruction capability, and it can do it much faster thanks to an almost twice as fast reload.
I will agree that the Firefly could possibly have a reduced HE ammo load out. It was a designated tank destroyer, and unless there was an enemy tank to content with the Shermans and Cromwells and their superior 75mm HE did all the infantry support work. The M4A3/76mm is a different story though, it was ultimately designed to replace the M4A3/75mm, but by the time it arrived the upped 76mm gun was not as badly needed yet it served on. It did have a weaker HE round without a doubt. However, it still performed a direct support role right alongside the M4/75mm and the infantry. I say leave it alone.
I was not aware of an sun sight inaccuracy in the M4/75mm. I guess I will pay more attention next time.
Oh, and if you want to test weapons, etc, vs OBJ then may I suggest going offline. Using the TA to measure anything is a bit of a stretch because the damage model and hardness settings are not in line with the MA.
I have a couple of spreadsheets showing weapons damage and tank data I've offered up to people in a different thread. Anyone who wants them is more than welcome to PM me their email and I will gladly send them.
-
So this is a multi-faceted wish.
1) No HE in the Firefly
2) No HE in the M4A3-76
3) gunsite and trajectory correction of M4A3-75
4) Cruiser Tank Mk III Challenger
#1 would be historically incorrect as Fireflies were provided with HE rounds (17pdr Mk I and Mk II HE rounds). I posted this in the "New HE round" thread.
This is an excerpt from the report, Middle East AFV Technical Liaison Letter 25, 16 December 1944 outlined the experience of the 2nd Canadian Armoured Regiment in Italy.
On 14 Oct the 17 pdr tks saw their first action when this squadron provided close support for an infantry battalion (Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment) in an advance beyond SCOLO RIGOSSA. In the first afternoon this force gained approximately 1500 yds against stubborn resistance. Although the 17 pdr tanks were kept rearmost in their troops, they were called upon to shoot up many houses and dug-outs, and the HE shell was found to be about the same as the 75mm. In the opinion of one troop sergeant it "seems to knock out the back wall of the house"
Instead of wishing to remove the HE round from the Firefly, a better wish would be to accurately model the HE rounds that were used by the Firefly.
ack-ack
-
WRONG! I'm glad I get to beat Looshy in telling you so, too. :rofl
The Tiger II, Tiger, and T34/85mm all have the same HE damage: 234 lbs
Interesting that you say "WRONG!" and then agree with everything.
-
#1 would be historically incorrect as Fireflies were provided with HE rounds (17pdr Mk I and Mk II HE rounds). I posted this in the "New HE round" thread.
This is an excerpt from the report, Middle East AFV Technical Liaison Letter 25, 16 December 1944 outlined the experience of the 2nd Canadian Armoured Regiment in Italy.
Instead of wishing to remove the HE round from the Firefly, a better wish would be to accurately model the HE rounds that were used by the Firefly.
ack-ack
Provided and then not used. Lie Loon points out the M4A3-75 was leaned on fairly heavily for their HE while the other tanks kept their stocks of AP rather than the useless HE. If the HE is going to be loaded then it certainly needs to be corrected for blast radius.
-
Provided and then not used. Lie Loon points out the M4A3-75 was leaned on fairly heavily for their HE while the other tanks kept their stocks of AP rather than the useless HE. If the HE is going to be loaded then it certainly needs to be corrected for blast radius.
Much like P-51Ds didn't carry two 1000lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets at the same time in WWII? Why so picky about the Firefly and so lenient with the P-51D?
(They should both be limited to loads that were used historically, in my opinion.)
-
HTC really needs to take a difinitive stance on the whole availability vs use thing. Only way we can treat such cases fairly.
-
Much like P-51Ds didn't carry two 1000lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets at the same time in WWII? Why so picky about the Firefly and so lenient with the P-51D?
(They should both be limited to loads that were used historically, in my opinion.)
Apparently you slept through the posted images of P-51Ds that actually DID use two 1000lb bombs and six 5" rockets. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Before further hijacking is attempted:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,339900.msg4484120.html#msg4484120
-
And there were apparently Fireflies that used HE rounds. Just in insignificant numbers compared with the AP only Fireflies. Just like the P-51Ds.
In AH you never see a P-51D lift with ordnance other than two 1000lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets.
-
Interesting that you say "WRONG!" and then agree with everything.
I didn't agree with anything you said. I posted a data set that corrected your proclamation that the Tiger has the "best" HE when you're own testing showed you didn't have any controls to compare it to. The term "best" is a bit misleading when the other factors are brought in to play. You didn't say a word about the T34/85, your controls, your targets, or how you measured damage.
Have you ever compared the Tiger II, Tiger, or T34/85 vs the M4/75 in just HE only? When comparing individual rounds sure all three have better HE damage then the M4/75mm, but when you bring in to consideration the rate of fire and the amount of ammo the tank is able to carry the M4/75 reigns supreme when it comes to assaulting a town.
In terms of the 17 Pdr, I wont argue the fact that the data that HTC is using is the first or early version of the 17Pdr HE round. As the war progressed a new round became available it was was better. If you were to line up real world tank HE rounds you'd see that HTC has taken liberties in grouping them together. I wish they'd start with their control (312 lbs hardness on an OBJ), then scale the rounds out more closely to the real deal. I'm not exactly sure why HTC has grouped the T34/85 in with the Tiger II and Tiger for it is more in line with the M4/75mm than it is the Tiger. The M8's 37mm would be the little guy on the block.
... and be careful how you use the term "Lie", chum. :ahand
-
Didnt need to. The purpose of the test was comparison of the M4A3-75 HE-APC with the Firefly.
Also obvious is the fact you pay little attention to what I have said previously about these tanks. I use the Tiger II and M4A3-75 almost exclusively and for different purposes. The Firefly ammunition is incorrect. Design your own test and prove me wrong. Please.
-
And there were apparently Fireflies that used HE rounds. Just in insignificant numbers compared with the AP only Fireflies. Just like the P-51Ds.
In AH you never see a P-51D lift with ordnance other than two 1000lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets.
Incorrect on all counts. Of course I expect this sort of misinformation from you.
-
So no firefly ever fired a single HE round in combat in WWII?
And it isn't true that most P-51's that lift with ordnance take 2 1000lb bombs and 6 HVAR rockets?
Also, the M4A3(76)W carried HE rounds, and used them in combat. The fact that some units complained about the decreased HE performance compared to the standard M4's proves as much.
Gunsight and trajectory for the 75mm Gun M3 are correct, or very close. For both rounds, mind you. The HE round would not under any circumstances have the same trajectory as the AP rounds, either M72, M61, or M61A1. The HE round had a different mass, and a lower muzzle velocity. Even one of those would result in a different trajectory from the AP round, and both could result in a significant difference.
However, since you seem to know it is incorrect, you may wish to share this information with HTC.
-
Incorrect on all counts. Of course I expect this sort of misinformation from you.
If you'd tell the truth it would help, but seeing as all you seem to do is cherry pick data to support your desires regardless of historical accuracy, well, that isn't surprising.
-
Apparently you slept through the posted images of P-51Ds that actually DID use two 1000lb bombs and six 5" rockets. :rolleyes:
EDIT: Before further hijacking is attempted:
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,339900.msg4484120.html#msg4484120
Its been proven the photo was from Korea, next.
-
Its been proven the photo was from Korea, next.
Nope that photo has been proved 1944.
-
Nope that photo has been proved 1944.
What proof it flew in combat with that load?
-
What proof it flew in combat with that load?
First off in other threads the naysayers said no such photo will be found of a WWII era P51D because such a load out was never done.
The naysayers say provide proof just one photo.
Megalodon finds the photo. :headscratch:
Now you want actual proof of combat usage.
I don't have the answer I don't know.
The photo in question if I recall correctly was taken 1944 in Europe some place,you will have to ask Megalodon on that one.
At this point I would lean towards what Megalodon found as evidence that they were used.
On this topic your track record is less than stellar.
Maybe best to move on to other topics. :aok
Actually I pointed out numerous times they wern't used in WW2, you wanted it I showed the source and proof in the other forums - even in Korea they did NOT use 1,000lb bombs and rockets even when the target was CAS less then 100 miles from Seoul.
Find me a photo of a D mustang with 1,000lb bombs and HVAR rockets or some source on who used it.
WWII.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p51dbombsandrockets2nov44-1.jpg)
Korea.
(http://i1002.photobucket.com/albums/af142/barneybolac/p51Korea.jpg)
-
Yes, here is a B-17 with rockets on the very rarely used external racks.
(http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii120/Duggy009/B-17F-bombracks.jpg)
Actually there is not evidence that it was used in combat... but here is a photo so we should have it.
-
I will not dispute that the photo is from WWII. That said, of all the photos of laden P-51s from WWII that people have found only a single photo shows the loadout that is by far the most common in AH. And now one of the guy's who opposes any restriction on the P-51D is asking for restrictions on the M4A3(76) and Firefly Vc because they didn't commonly, per his claims, use HE rounds. He doesn't claim they never used them, just that they very rarely used or carried them.
In that vein, I'll note that my pet toy probably ought not have the ability to carry bombs and rockets at the same time.
-
One photo really doesn't show any proof, I mean here's an example:
(http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/imgs/dornier-do335-pfeil_2.jpg)
So it must of served in WW2... Fact is we know its a Do-335 and all were prototypes. Far as the P51-D is concerned, I cannot find any documentation to provide they flew with bombs AND rockets, biggest reason I can see is it was used as an escort fighter while P-47 and P-38 were religated to ground attack duty.
There wasn't a need for P-51s to carry ords, at least until the end, but then how come there are not thousands of photos or even documents saying it did?
Maybe it was a field modification, which we don't allow in Aces High - and plenty of planes have field mods. I just try to rely on facts otherwise one can argue - if one plane can use bombs AND rockets and not historical, why dont we get the Do-335?
-
If you're talking the German planes when you say field mods, most if not all widely used field mods were turned into official upgrade kits.
-
If you're talking the German planes when you say field mods, most if not all widely used field mods were turned into official upgrade kits.
German, American everyone had field modifications - look at the B-26, it was adapted to carry torpedoes as the Fw-190.
-
OK, thought you meant planes in AH have field mods.
-
I will not dispute that the photo is from WWII. That said, of all the photos of laden P-51s from WWII that people have found only a single photo shows the loadout that is by far the most common in AH. And now one of the guy's who opposes any restriction on the P-51D is asking for restrictions on the M4A3(76) and Firefly Vc because they didn't commonly, per his claims, use HE rounds. He doesn't claim they never used them, just that they very rarely used or carried them.
In that vein, I'll note that my pet toy probably ought not have the ability to carry bombs and rockets at the same time.
You seem to foget that cameras in the 40's were not as prevalent as they are today. The country was just coming out of depression and the fact that photos were taken at all is amazing! Also, we were in a different age when secrecy was actually maintained even by the press (FDR confined to a wheelchair for instance) and photos of aircraft primed for a mission would have been something they looked out for. I dont find the lack of images surprising at all for that very reason.
Also, why are you focusing on this one request? It would be better if the HE rounds for the Firefly were realistic and then no one would carry them anyway, because they just didnt have any power! Until they are modified they should be removed just like the cannon on the 234 should be removed. In that case they were never used.
-
He doesn't claim they never used them, just that they very rarely used or carried them.
He's not shown the 17 pdr HE round (either the Mk I or Mk II) were rarely issued to Firefly tank crews, especially in light of the fact that there is ample evidence (like what I posted) that Firefly crews were issued HE rounds and used them as well.
ack-ack
-
I'm sorry ack-ack I looked but there were no pictures available. And Wal-Mart is all out of picture cutouts about the Firefly also. :rolleyes:
-
I didn't realize pictures were nessecary. Someone quick, find pictures of everything, even the well known, extensively documented things. Who knows if the mossie had guns unless we see pictures?!?!
-
I'm sorry ack-ack I looked but there were no pictures available. And Wal-Mart is all out of picture cutouts about the Firefly also. :rolleyes:
Nice sarcasm.
Has anybody managed to post logs showing P-51Ds carrying two 1000lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets? I've not seen any. Did the USAAF not keep such records?
-
Nice sarcasm.
Has anybody managed to post logs showing P-51Ds carrying two 1000lb bombs and six 5" HVAR rockets? I've not seen any. Did the USAAF not keep such records?
USAAF was very good about keeping records, squadron logs, personal biographies - I searched what small collection I have of information; of course the P-51 being one of the most popular aircrafts which had plenty of books on - did not ring up anything.
What Ack-ack says, is different, Firefly on the other hand, I cant find any information whether it carried AP or HE, however without actual evidence and support to back it up, really throws a wrench in.
I just rather be 100% accurate with information then throw wild guesses.
-
Didnt need to. The purpose of the test was comparison of the M4A3-75 HE-APC with the Firefly.
Also obvious is the fact you pay little attention to what I have said previously about these tanks. I use the Tiger II and M4A3-75 almost exclusively and for different purposes. The Firefly ammunition is incorrect. Design your own test and prove me wrong. Please.
It doesn't matter what you've said previously about these tanks. The proclamation you made in your opening post was incorrect, or at least short on information.
The Firefly HE, unless HTC has changed it without mentioning in the change log, is 140 lbs of HE. It will take 3 hits from a Firefly to destroy a OBJ with 312 lbs of hardness (building, ammo bunker, fuel tank, barracks, etc). The M4A4/75mm will only take 2 thank to its 178 lbs of damage. The Panther, Pzr IV's, T34/76, and LVT-4 will also take 2 rounds because they dish out 156 lbs of damage. The King Tiger, Tiger, and T34/85 will also take 2 rounds to destroy a typical OBJ but they do 234 lbs of damage. The M4A3 (W) 76mm and M18 need 4 rounds of HE to destroy a town building, etc, they only do 103 lbs of damage. It isn't such a big deal vs the typical OBJ, but when hangers and shore batteries are brought in to play the big boys get their due at least on a round by round basis. You simply cant not judge them solely on using a town building as a control.
I tested *all* of the weapons in AH *offline* and I know all of their damage values down to the pound vs OBJ with the exception of the shore battery, 8in naval gun, and 5in naval gun.
-
single 8in shell equals about 500lbs a single 5in shell equals about a 250lb bomb or a 100lb bomb I can't remember
-
USAAF was very good about keeping records, squadron logs, personal biographies - I searched what small collection I have of information; of course the P-51 being one of the most popular aircrafts which had plenty of books on - did not ring up anything.
What Ack-ack says, is different, Firefly on the other hand, I cant find any information whether it carried AP or HE, however without actual evidence and support to back it up, really throws a wrench in.
I just rather be 100% accurate with information then throw wild guesses.
Try looking through AAR's for complaints about the weak HE shell. If you can't find official records, soldiers complaining should give you what you need.
-
I've compared tiger HE with m4 75HE in the city and the tiger HE is a bit more destructive.
-
M4 fires almost twice as fast though :bolt: