Firefly -1 reply

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#21 16 years ago

I have a relative armor calculation program I got from a Panzer website, but I dont remember which one.

My specs say the Tiger I ausf E had a 102mm front upper hull plate set at 9deg from vertical. According to the calculator that figures to be just over 103mm. The armor plate is not angled enough to benefit from sloping.

The Russian 76.2mm sub caliber ammo would be the best round used for penetration values. FH has said it does not use the best ammo and besides if the subcaliber ammo your referring to is the same one referred to as the arrowhead round it iwas notoriously inaccurate at over 500m.

The 6lbr fired either a HVAP discarding sabot round at 4,000fps or a APCBC at 2,750fps. The HVAP sabot round could penetrate 103mm of 30deg angled armor at 1000m. The APCBC round could penetrate roughly 75mm of 30deg armored plate from 1000m.

Again reminding that FH does not use the best A/T round, the 6lbr APCBC cannot penetrate the front armor of a Panther and would need a whole lotta luck and a tailwind to penetrate a Tiger I ausf E's front armor. The 6lbr should need a lot of luck penetrating a Tiger but the Panther is very vulnerable in the sides. It only has a relative armor thickness of about 52mm which a 6lbr can penetrate without too much problem.

A 6lbr should penetrate a PzIV without too much problem through the front and easily through the sides.

A 6lbr should not be able to penetrate the TIGER II ausf B and should need alot of luck to penetrate the sides. IRL the only weak spot was lower side hull and even then the attaced side skirts made penetration difficult.

Just my 2cents but right now it seems the PzIV is over armored and the Tigers main gun is too weak. The Panther's armor is too weak and its main gun should be even stronger than the Tigers. Yes it was like that in real life.

The Churchill is the really slow Brit tank and the Cromwell is the really fast one. Both carry a 6lbr.

The Churchill is supposed to be a Mk III. Front hull is 102mm, side hull is 76mm, rear is 50mm, turret front is 86mm, and turret side is 76mm.

Supposedly by 1944 almost all Churchills were to have been upgraded to Mk VII armor specs. That means the armor goes up to 140-150mm front armor, 95mm side armor, 50mm rear armor, turret front 152mm, turret sides 95mm. The upgraded version seems like the version we have in FH.

The Cromwell in game is a Mk VIII and has armor of 101mm front, 32mm side and rear hull, 76mm turret front, and 63mm turret side. And all of it is vertical. In FH anything German 50mm or above firing AP should kill a Cromwell from any angle.

In December of 1944 the Comet entered service. It was designed to replace the Cromwell but had to use as many parts from the Cromwell as possible. The Comet also carried the 77mm gun, a modified 17lbr that was more compact so it could fit into the Cromwell turret. The 77mm fired the same shell as the 17lbr but due to the slightly shorter barrel penetration was about 30mm less. Firing APCBC the 77mm could penetrate about 105mm of 30deg angled armor at 1000m while the 17lbr could penetrate about 120mm of 30deg armor at 1000m firing same round.




FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#22 16 years ago

There are many things the BF engine cannot do. Like differentiate between AP and HE ammo. HEAT, Sabot etc are a dream. What is shatter gap and when were the different ammo types introduced? Why does the Matilda II have splash when it had no HE rounds? Looking at gun table data gives you capability but doesn't mention history or other cronological info.

This is one of the current difficulties the devs have. Should a Firefly, considering the view distances in BF, be able to destroy a Tiger @ max view distance? When a Tiger could engage a Firefly @ max range and destroy it. A Firefly was guaranteed a kill @ 700m (beyond BF view distance). Struth the 88mm L/56 was 100% accurate @ 1000m (see Krupps) so what do the devs do?

Landmines whichever way they tread.




Comrade0Red

Za *TRA*, Za Kommunizma!

50 XP

25th March 2004

0 Uploads

895 Posts

0 Threads

#23 16 years ago

If you don't wanna tone things down and bring this Realism=Gameplay stuff out then really according to the sizes of the maps most tanks would die after one or two hits. Even in most cases with the ranges tanks engage eachother at in FH a Sherman would be able to kill a Tiger in 1-3 shots.




MelanchOli

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

31st March 2004

0 Uploads

303 Posts

0 Threads

#24 16 years ago
FryaDuckThere are many things the BF engine cannot do. Like differentiate between AP and HE ammo. HEAT, Sabot etc are a dream.

Two types of ammo is possible, as had been proved by the DCR (?)mod. More than two wouldn't make sense anyway; why would you need HEAT or Sabot? Simple AP is enough fighting power given FH tank combat ranges.

Why does the Matilda II have splash when it had no HE rounds?

Could be solved by allowing two types of ammo and denying the British tanks HE ammo until 1942 or so. But then it's a game play thing again: a MatII only had its MG to fight infantry and - worse - anti-tank guns. I don't think Allied side gamers would enjoy that... :uhm:

Looking at gun table data gives you capability but doesn't mention history or other cronological info.

I don't quite get what you're saying.

This is one of the current difficulties the devs have. Should a Firefly, considering the view distances in BF, be able to destroy a Tiger @ max view distance? When a Tiger could engage a Firefly @ max range and destroy it. A Firefly was guaranteed a kill @ 700m (beyond BF view distance). Struth the 88mm L/56 was 100% accurate @ 1000m (see Krupps) so what do the devs do?

Well - a T34-85 kills a Pz4 with a single hit at any distance in FH, as far as I've lived to see it (maybe except for the Pz4H's front, but this is buggy). Same for the Panther against a T34-76 or T34-85. Does anyone complain here?

The Tiger kills a Firefly with a single hit, AFAIK. Why not the other way round? What's so bad bout that? What's the purpose of the Firefly if it can't kill a Tiger effectively? On most maps where the Firefly appears, it's up against the King Tiger, anyway.

So I'd say up the Firefly's damage. Have it kill a Tiger I with a single hit, no matter where. Nobody whines about the Tiger killing other tanks with a single hit. This is two kinds of measurement, IMO. I don't think the Tiger should get special treatment just because some people want an über weapon.

The Tiger's handling is delicate in FH; its slow turret rotation (which is about three times as quick as IRL BTW) makes it a tank that has to stand off during combat and take enemies from afar. Exactly as it was supposed to. Yet, most people using the Tiger need a one-hit-kill gun to make up for their lack of tank tactics, as far as I've seen it. Moving a Tiger into close-range combat? :rolleyes: No friggin way.

Landmines whichever way they tread.

Typical problem of all realism games: how much realism is still playable? When does it stop being fun? Hard thing to decide. You always make some people angry, not matter what you do.




MkH^

FH tester

50 XP

24th September 2003

0 Uploads

2,286 Posts

0 Threads

#25 16 years ago

The Tiger kills a Firefly with a single hit, AFAIK. Why not the other way round? What's so bad bout that? What's the purpose of the Firefly if it can't kill a Tiger effectively? On most maps where the Firefly appears, it's up against the King Tiger, anyway.

Again. It does not. That's the problem.

In my opinion FH should make a good use of the range modifier, like for example in such situations as described above. Since BF engine has a very low view distance, the differences between ranges and penetration should be made more clear. Like Firefly firing from max view distance would require two hits to kill a Tiger, when Tiger firing from that range would kill it with a single hit, from closer ranges again, Firefly would only require one hit to kill the Tiger.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#26 16 years ago

MelanchOli So I'd say up the Firefly's damage. Have it kill a Tiger I with a single hit, no matter where. Nobody whines about the Tiger killing other tanks with a single hit. This is two kinds of measurement, IMO. I don't think the Tiger should get special treatment just because some people want an über weapon.[/QUOTE]

Please just stop now. Im sick and frigging tired of people trying to downplay the Tiger. As is now people whining about the Tiger being too powerful have gimped it to the point that the PzIV is almost as powerful.

IT WAS AN UBER WEAPON. No one whines about the Tiger getting one shot kills because its supposed to. A gun capable of penetrating 150mm of armor has no problem penetrating the Shermans or T-34's 47mm of front armor and a Firefly is just a regular Sherman with a big gun. The Firefly on the other hand while very capable against the Tiger or Panther was never a guaranteed one shot kill. Plenty of Panthers and Tigers survived front shots from Fireflies. I even have a pic of a Tiger I with a 17lbr sabot projectile stuck in the front armor. The driver had to be treated for splinters in the face.

[QUOTE=MelanchOli] Yet, most people using the Tiger need a one-hit-kill gun to make up for their lack of tank tactics, as far as I've seen it. Moving a Tiger into close-range combat? :rolleyes: No friggin way.

The Panther and PzIVH also usually have a one shot kill capability, so does that mean people using them are lacking tactics? Of course not. Thats why your statement is absurb and ignorant.

By your example anyone who took the Firefly because it had a better gun also lack tank tactics.

If a Tiger sits outside infantry range waiting for backup before taking the flag he usually gets a roof full of Typhoon rockets or shot at by a Firefly taking considerable damage in the process. If he comes into close combat to cap flag he gets assaulted by infantry. Seems the odds of success are the same.




FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#27 16 years ago
MelanchOliCould be solved by allowing two types of ammo and denying the British tanks HE ammo until 1942 or so. But then it's a game play thing again: a MatII only had its MG to fight infantry and - worse - anti-tank guns. I don't think Allied side gamers would enjoy that... :uhm:

It's the QF 2pr that didn't have HE the 6pr etc did.

Looking at gun table data gives you capability but doesn't mention history or other cronological info.

I don't quite get what you're saying.

What, you don't understand? That the 17pr had APCBC, APDS, APC, AP etc and it wasn't introduced all on the same day as well as the QF 17pr suffered from shatter gap early on? Understanding the penetration data also requires a research into when/what/where of the ammo to.

Well - a T34-85 kills a Pz4 with a single hit at any distance in FH, as far as I've lived to see it (maybe except for the Pz4H's front, but this is buggy). Same for the Panther against a T34-76 or T34-85. Does anyone complain here?

Why would they if it is historically correct (bugs excepted)?

The Tiger kills a Firefly with a single hit, AFAIK. Why not the other way round? What's so bad bout that? What's the purpose of the Firefly if it can't kill a Tiger effectively? On most maps where the Firefly appears, it's up against the King Tiger, anyway.

So I'd say up the Firefly's damage. Have it kill a Tiger I with a single hit, no matter where. Nobody whines about the Tiger killing other tanks with a single hit. This is two kinds of measurement, IMO. I don't think the Tiger should get special treatment just because some people want an über weapon.

Problem is the Tiger was an "über weapon" in comparison to the Firefly. All the Firefly had was a capable gun but not at equal ranges. To translate that down to BF doesn't mean equal capacity a max range yet the Firefly should be able to kill a Tiger (any angle) at "a range" shorter than max. Thus making the Tiger a standoff tank as it should be. Then we can see a good reason to lengthen respawn times on the Tiger to prevent an ahistorical overmatch eg. not that many Tigers around.

Because there is a know disadvantage it just requires tactics to defeat.

The Tiger's handling is delicate in FH; its slow turret rotation (which is about three times as quick as IRL BTW) makes it a tank that has to stand off during combat and take enemies from afar. Exactly as it was supposed to. Yet, most people using the Tiger need a one-hit-kill gun to make up for their lack of tank tactics, as far as I've seen it. Moving a Tiger into close-range combat? :rolleyes: No friggin way.

Fight it like a Stug with fine adjustment (turret traverse). I think Michael Witmann @ Villers Bocage did most of his work from 10-30m.

Typical problem of all realism games: how much realism is still playable? When does it stop being fun? Hard thing to decide. You always make some people angry, not matter what you do.

There are many ways to skin a cat it just requires a different mode of thought. What is fun? Is it twitch first shot kill or fire and maneuver that boils your oil? Is fun without difficulty of less value to the individual than fun with skill?

Ultimately it's not me to decide I just find Red vs Blue so mundane.




lumpeh

FH Groupie

50 XP

24th September 2003

0 Uploads

1,174 Posts

0 Threads

#28 16 years ago
FryaDuckThere are many things the BF engine cannot do. Like differentiate between AP and HE ammo.

This has been accomplished in the DC-X mod currently doing the rounds. I think we desparately need range calculated into the damage result.

This means that a tiger would have the uber range advantage, but shove near any tank at its side point blank and it will penetrate it.

Ranges/damage values need to be carefully approximated to the given short visual ranges in the current BF engine.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#29 16 years ago
FryaDuckIt's the QF 2pr that didn't have HE the 6pr etc did.

It seems originally the Brit 6lbr did not have a HE round for the 6lbr. The one that was eventually developed seems to have been considered inadequate. That was the reason for boring the 6lbr 's barrel out and modifying it to take US 75mm ammo.




MelanchOli

Dread thinks I'm a special person

50 XP

31st March 2004

0 Uploads

303 Posts

0 Threads

#30 16 years ago
Anlushac11some really good points by Anlushac on why my posting was quite a lot of crap

Erm, ok. My bad - I got kind of diverted. Subconsciously, I had the "Battle of Valirisk" map in my mind while posting - which is complete bullshit if we're discussing the Firefly, of course. I only realised that when I read your answer, Anlushac. Should've thought of Breakthrough, for example. Sorry to anyone I may have insulted. Wasn't my intention.

That's a map in which I've found the FH 0.61 Tiger to be a rather unpractical tank. Time and again. That's why I got that posting so terribly wrong. I thought of the Tiger being used in rugged terrain with bad overall sight and lots of places for infantry to hide. Sure, any tank looks bad in an environment like that, but all the more for the Tiger with its rather slow turret rotation speed. IRL the tank would have other means of defending against infantry that we don't normally have in FH (NBK90 and all MGs manned).

We've got a totally different situation on Breakthrough for sure. It's rather open terrain and we've got lots of long-range combat. This is where the Tiger shines and is supposed to shine, of course. It's clear to me that the Firefly is supposed to die by a single Tiger hit - wherever that hit might be. I didn't know it wasn't that obvious the other way round. Thanks for telling me.

I know the Tiger was an incredible fighting machine, as you say, it was an über weapon and far superior to anything the Allies could muster - just about until the very last day.

Dang, how stupid of me. Sorry, everyone. :vikki: