Since when could a Sherman Firefly, go toe to toe with a Tiger I and live? -1 reply

Please wait...

MR.X`

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

30th April 2004

0 Uploads

12,409 Posts

0 Threads

#31 14 years ago

It doesnt work like that. Tiger should always beat a Sherman unless he manages to get behind the Tiger.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#32 14 years ago
Neighbor KidMaybe the shell glanced opposed to penetrate....

Not to continue arguing with Hartmann but to reply.

It is possible, however unlikely the shell glanced off but FH does not model this.

Germans used a soft ballistic cap on their armor piercing composite ballistic cap shells (PzGr39) for the sole purpose that when the shell hit sloped armor the soft cap would distort and conform to the shape of the sloped armor. The friction of the round scraping across the armor would cause the round to want to plow into the armor and increase the chances of penetration.

The German APCBC shells were so well designed that teh Russians and US copied the design for their own shells.

Then there is this thing called T/d also referred to as normailzation. If a 75mm shell hits 75mm of vertical armor there is a 50/50 chance the shell will penetrate, all things being equal. Velocity and mass of shell can tip the scale either way to penetrate or not penetrate.

When you increase the size of the shell the probability of penetration goes up. If the shell is of high enough diamater the chance of penetration goes up exponentially, and even with sloped armor if the round is large enoughnit negates the effects of sloped armor.

Due to the excellent design of the PzGr39 ammo and the normalization effects 75mm L/48, 75mm L/70, 88mm L/56, and 88mm L/71 had very little problem with penetration, even with sloped armor. Only the late model IS-2 was considered relatively penetration proof and that was against 88mm L/56. 88mm L/71 and 128mm both penetrated.




Green-5ive

Tanks?I eat 'em for breakfast!

50 XP

17th November 2004

0 Uploads

66 Posts

0 Threads

#33 14 years ago

Sherman Firefly: Armour plating on hull front: 76 mm (3 inches) Tiger 1: Armour plating on hull front: 100 mm at 80 degrees Armour plating on hull sides: 80 mm at 90 degrees Armour plating on turret front: 100 mm at 80 degrees Armour plating on turret sides: 80 mm at 64 degrees All I know, and the Panther is much too strong. Ingame it looks like it has even more armour then the tiger :S




Major Hartmann

Major Disinformation

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,347 Posts

0 Threads

#34 14 years ago

Well, efectively the Panthers front was stronger than the Tigers.




[WOLF] JChaser

WOLF Member At Large

50 XP

13th January 2004

0 Uploads

45 Posts

0 Threads

#35 14 years ago

Hartmann said it right frontaly it is effectivly stronger.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#36 14 years ago
'[WOLF JChaser']Hartmann said it right frontaly it is effectivly stronger.

Everyone knows a tanks front armor is effectively stronger than the sides. I dont know of a tank made that has weaker armor on the side that normally faces the enemy than the sides whicjh are normally facing away.

@Green 5ive:

The front turret manlet is 76mm, what was being argued was the front upper hull which was 45-51mm on dry storage hulls, depending on whose source. Wet stowage hulls were 64mm.

Firefly's were made from dry and wet stowage hulls, wet stowage 76mm hulls being preferred due to less customization work needed. Due to a shortage of 76mm hulls majority were 75mm dry stowage hulls.

Whether the Firefly could penetrate a Tiger was never questioned. What was being argued is why a 88mm L/56 fired from a Tiger could not penetrate a Shermas front armor when in reality it had no problems killing a Sherman frontally.

From Belton Coopers book "Deathtraps: The survival of a US armored Division in WW2"

"In comparison, the German high-velocity guns could not only penetrate the lighter armor of a Sherman with a single shot at long range, they could knock out a Sherman even after shooting through a brick wall and in at least one instance, by shooting through another Sherman tank. " - pg.308, paragraph 2.




MrFancypants Forum Admin

The Bad

217,642 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,026 Posts

9 Threads

#37 14 years ago
Anlushac11...and in at least one instance, by shooting through another Sherman tank.

Wow, this is impressive.




Kingrudolf

Fan FH Mapper

50 XP

9th October 2003

0 Uploads

1,345 Posts

0 Threads

#38 14 years ago

I think Shermans should blow with one shot from the front.. but, with that, the Tiger should then also be blown with one shot from the Firefly.. even at the front. Not that it matters.. if you're hit the first time you can count on it that you're dead within a few seconds anyway. To survive you need to see him before he sees you.. we're talking about the current system here.. but, I'd prefer the way I suggested.. one shot, one kill for both of them.




Doedel

Slightly cooler than a n00b

50 XP

4th April 2004

0 Uploads

30 Posts

0 Threads

#39 14 years ago

I whole-heartedly agree. There is almost no way in hell that a Sherman, save for a Jumbo, could survive a direct frontal hit by a Tiger's 88mm, unless God himself intervened. Likewise, the Tiger shouldn't have survived the first hit by the Firefly, either.




Mp5-Killa

FH Betatester

50 XP

20th April 2004

0 Uploads

1,161 Posts

0 Threads

#40 14 years ago

Within 1km i beleive, good ol' british 17 pounders :P.