tiger

[AWwrgwy]

yeah but you have too look at armour and gun pershing tigers armour was nearly 4 inches thick making it a hard too kill tank but in ah sometimes single 75mm rounds persh all of the armour

engrish?


wrongway

[Karnak]

oh sure its me why dont you have some of your family in the tank division with basic sherman ww2 then come back and tell me

Having family who use the M4 Sherman does not convey any particular knowelge about the subject to you, as you demonstrated earlier.

The 75mm KwK 42 L/70 gun on the Panther tanks could penetrate 150mm of armor at 1000 meters, that is significantly better performance than the US 76mm cannon on the M4E8 Sherman or the Russian 85mm cannon on the T-38/85 or the German 88mm cannon on the Tiger I, the 88mm cannon on the Tiger II was superior however.  In AH the 75mm gun on the Panzer IV H out performs the 76mm gun on the T-34/76 by a very large margin, as it should and the 76mm 17lber on the Sherman Firefly out performs the 88mm gun on the Tiger I, which is also correct.

Diameter of the bore does play a part, but it is only a part and does not tell us anything approaching all the information about a given gun's performance.

[moot]

Optics that reflect historical disparity could make the tiger worth its current price.

[Jabberwock]

tiger sucks did any of you watch the video plus ive been killed by one 75 mm round in tiger the 76 mm and 85 77mm were built to counter tiger 75 couldnt kill tiger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZ34lVcYAA

I'm hardly a paragon of virtue when it comes to the English language, but capitalisation, punctuation and basic grammar and knowledge of sentence/paragraph may help your argument.

To translate:

"Tiger sucks.

Did any of you watch the video?

Plus, I've been killed by one 75 mm round in Tiger. The 76 mm, 85 mm and 77mm were built to counter the Tiger. I believe the 75 mm couldn't kill the Tiger"

Now that we can understand your argument, we can break it down.

Yes, the  75 mm mounted on the Sherman (as well as several British tanks of the period) was inadequate against the Tiger tank. However, inadequate does not mean completely ineffective.

While there was very little chance of any penetration by the 75 mm frontally, side and rear hits, particularly on the lower hull, could (and did) result in penetrations.

So, the Tiger was not invulnerable to the 75 mm, just highly resistant to it.

Secondly, your belief that the various larger caliber tank cannon were designed to defeat the Tiger is incorrect, at least in the case of the British and the Russians.

The British 17 lbr (which shouldn't be confused with the 77 mm, which is a different weapon) was developed out of a 1940 requirement for a gun to replace the 6 lbr (which was just beginning deployment at the time). Production began in April 1942, well before the Tiger appeared on the battlefield.

The Russian 85 mm tank gun was developed from an existing 85 mm anti aircraft gun, which had been in Soviet service since 1939. Its incorporation into tanks was under consideration in early 1942, but production priorities and the complete dislocation of Soviet military production meant that the 76.2 mm was retained as the primary tank gun until late 1943/early 1944.

[Anaxogoras]

Optics that reflect historical disparity could make the tiger worth its current price.

You're just asking for more buttons to push.  AH customers do not want historically accurate sights and instrumentation.

[moot]

Not when we can do without em and/or they detract from the fight.... That's always been the crux of my argument on it.  Those buttons to push in the GVs wouldn't be adding to much. As it is the GVs are just toys compared to the planes. No trim, no stalling, 2D battleground etc.

[Larry]

You're just asking for more buttons to push.  AH customers do not want historically accurate sights and instrumentation.

Only the ones that think AH should have super l33t plane upgrades to make your plane faster or turn tighter.

[dirt911]

but think about it tiger was built in a time where no other tank could kill it tiger was built too sweep all before it and keep on. eventually allied designers and tank crews became so desparete that, they were using ground troops too capture these things.

after capturing these tanks and many tests on 102mm armour only one allied gun could penetrare all the way through the armour,The QF 17 pounder a british gun but the british had no tanks at the time too mount it on.
So the american designers after studying the power too weight ratio of the sherman and weight of the gun mounted it on a sherman naming it the firefly this tank was excellent proving effective against tiger 1 although it still faced one problem sherman couldnt with stand an 88mm hit many crews of the day were not trained to deal with a tiger meaning still,even though the right gun was there the tank was there and all
it still could sweep all before it.





                                                                  THE END

[AWwrgwy]

but think about it tiger was built in a time where no other tank could kill it tiger was built too sweep all before it and keep on. eventually allied designers and tank crews became so desparete that, they were using ground troops too capture these things.

after capturing these tanks and many tests on 102mm armour only one allied gun could penetrare all the way through the armour,The QF 17 pounder a british gun but the british had no tanks at the time too mount it on.
So the american designers after studying the power too weight ratio of the sherman and weight of the gun mounted it on a sherman naming it the firefly this tank was excellent proving effective against tiger 1 although it still faced one problem sherman couldnt with stand an 88mm hit many crews of the day were not trained to deal with a tiger meaning still,even though the right gun was there the tank was there and all
it still could sweep all before it.





                                                                  THE END

Uhhhh.....  No.




wrongway

[frank3]

It was a nice story though, but I have to concur with Rightway (who is never wrong )

[dirt911]

hey that took 6 hours too think over and post

[Larry]

Dirt911 what country are you from?

[BigPlay]

Firefly price needs to go up, and we still need our standard, lousy, hangar-queen, Ronson-lighter Sherman. 

Is the T-34/85 still getting turreted easier than any other tank in the game, including a T-35/76? Until that is fixed, it is not worth a single perk.

Agreed!


I had an M8 turret me while in a T-34/85. This M8 can up behind me and by the time I got the barrel swung around my turret was out. No way on God's green earth that should ever happen no matter how many shots he takes.

[dirt911]

Im from the U.S

[E25280]

Agreed!


I had an M8 turret me while in a T-34/85. This M8 can up behind me and by the time I got the barrel swung around my turret was out. No way on God's green earth that should ever happen no matter how many shots he takes.

What makes you say that?