M4 76's front armor too strong?

[The Fugitive]

Nor should they match. One is a real world incident, the other is a game.

[Sperky]

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!  

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.

[THRASH99]

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. 

[THRASH99]

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.

[Sperky]

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.

[Spikes]

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.

[The Fugitive]

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.

[Lusche]

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.

[Sperky]

The point is why the M4 shrugged off two hits from the Tiger.

 

Any luck duplicating the shot?

[Ack-Ack]

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

[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

[Lusche]

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! 

[Spikes]

Any luck duplicating the shot?

No it doesn't work in Offline...don't tank much online.

[Lusche]

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)

[THRASH99]

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