Sherman Firefly & the US -1 reply

Please wait...

FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#91 15 years ago
Anlushac11Im curious how you twisted "The US didnt know the Germans were using face hardened armor" into "You have continually state that or indicate that German tanks were made out of FHA, it is incorrect." Where did I state the German tank was made out of face hardened armor? Since when does "Used" equate "made out of". I would also like to point this out. [/QUOTE] You must have difficulties with the English language. [quote=Anlushac11]The US didnt know the Germans were using face hardened armor

You infer in this sentence that no other armor type is used and deliberately neglect to mention that the armor plate was infact RHA. Your own words make out that what defeated US AT weaponry was FACE HARDENED ARMOR PLATE when clearly it was a failure of ammunition that caused the "shatter gap" effect. You completely neglected to acknowledge the fact that FHA post October 1940 was only used in Vorpanzer and Zusatzpanzerung fitment. RHA plate was obtained for unused stocks and canibalised from unrepairable/obsolete vehicles.

Vorpanzer Vorpanzer - spaced armour. This was fitted to some of the Pz.Kpfw.IV kz Ausf.F (F1) from February 1942. It differed from Zusatzpanzerung because it was spaced from the underlying armour, whereas Zusatzpanzerung was fitted directly onto the armour underneath. Vorpanzer was designed to defeat 105mm HEAT projectiles, and to strip off the piercing caps of APC and APCBC projectiles which would then shatter on the FH armour behind. It also caused any HE filler in such projectiles to detonate prematurely.

Zusatzpanzerung Zusatzpanzerung - additional armour plating. It differed from Vorpanzer because it was fitted directly onto the armour underneath, whereas Vorpanzer was spaced from the underlying armour.

In the case of gun mantles which is only 40% (if that) of the frontal elevation and 0% of side, rear and top elevations attacked. We can clearly see that FHA had little affect (possibly 10% but probably 2%) on why the US M3 rounds would shatter. This obviously means that "The US didnt know the Germans were using face hardened armor" is incorrect or a mistake due to a lack of understanding the subject.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#92 15 years ago
FryaDuckYou must have difficulties with the English language. You infer in this sentence that no other armor type is used and deliberately neglect to mention that the armor plate was infact RHA. Your own words make out that what defeated US AT weaponry was FACE HARDENED ARMOR PLATE when clearly it was a failure of ammunition that caused the "shatter gap" effect. You completely neglected to acknowledge the fact that FHA post October 1940 was only used in Vorpanzer and Zusatzpanzerung fitment. RHA plate was obtained for unused stocks and canibalised from unrepairable/obsolete vehicles. Vorpanzer Vorpanzer - spaced armour. This was fitted to some of the Pz.Kpfw.IV kz Ausf.F (F1) from February 1942. It differed from Zusatzpanzerung because it was spaced from the underlying armour, whereas Zusatzpanzerung was fitted directly onto the armour underneath. Vorpanzer was designed to defeat 105mm HEAT projectiles, and to strip off the piercing caps of APC and APCBC projectiles which would then shatter on the FH armour behind. It also caused any HE filler in such projectiles to detonate prematurely. Zusatzpanzerung Zusatzpanzerung - additional armour plating. It differed from Vorpanzer because it was fitted directly onto the armour underneath, whereas Vorpanzer was spaced from the underlying armour. In the case of gun mantles which is only 40% (if that) of the frontal elevation and 0% of side, rear and top elevations attacked. We can clearly see that FHA had little affect (possibly 10% but probably 2%) on why the US M3 rounds would shatter. This obviously means that "The US didnt know the Germans were using face hardened armor" is incorrect or a mistake due to a lack of understanding the subject.

I understand english, your just on a witch hunt.

I said the Germans used face hardened armor on their tanks, be it a spaced armor kit or a applique armor kit, it was still made from face hardened armor.

At first you said the Germans did not use FHA after October 1940. Yet in a follow up post you agreed that the Germans used FHA.

You also implied that I did not do proper research and you would quote Jentz. Then I showed the source material, mowt of which was based on Jentz.

If you have problems remembering this please refer to your previous posts. It is in the thread for all the world to see.

The US AP rounds were designed with RHA and cast armor in mind, it was felt FHA would not be widely used due to its more involved production process and the accompanying higher cost.

Your posts directed at me are usually bordering on flame baiting and personal attacks. You have insulted me on multiple occasions.

In the past I would be happy to argue with you, things are different now. It would reflect poorly on FF and FH to resort to the kind of arguments we have had in the past.




Mazz

BFE-WAW

50 XP

15th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,245 Posts

0 Threads

#93 15 years ago

I know about the M-163 but its not right to say its comparable with the ZSU-23-4. Also, the M-163 and M-48 has been outdated since the Russians brought the Mi-28 out. The DIVADS role nows basically falls under the Avenger and for the Marines, the small fleet of LAV-ADs they have. That or the M6 Linebacker which is based off the Bradley.... The Tunguska is another design thats proven the Russians learn from their experience. SA-19s with a combination of the twin 30s is pretty formidable for the role it fills.




FryaDuck

All my base are belong to n0e

50 XP

29th September 2003

0 Uploads

515 Posts

0 Threads

#94 15 years ago
Anlushac11I understand english, your just on a witch hunt. I said the Germans used face hardened armor on their tanks, be it a spaced armor kit or a applique armor kit, it was still made from face hardened armor. At first you said the Germans did not use FHA after October 1940. Yet in a follow up post you agreed that the Germans used FHA. You also implied that I did not do proper research and you would quote Jentz. Then I showed the source material, mowt of which was based on Jentz. If you have problems remembering this please refer to your previous posts. It is in the thread for all the world to see. The US AP rounds were designed with RHA and cast armor in mind, it was felt FHA would not be widely used due to its more involved production process and the accompanying higher cost. Your posts directed at me are usually bordering on flame baiting and personal attacks. You have insulted me on multiple occasions. In the past I would be happy to argue with you, things are different now. It would reflect poorly on FF and FH to resort to the kind of arguments we have had in the past.

If you are going to be proported as;

we have Anlushac11 who will be coding and mapping, as well as contributing his encyclopedic knowledge of World War II.

Then you should be expected to know the subject and be able to communicate the information correctly. You should be as pedantic as the "vast wealth" of knowledge you possess. You misscommunicated or missrepresented the information and thereby, the less informed would or could conclude, that German Armor was FHA. You have shown yourself that this was not the case and I confirmed it.

The US AP rounds were designed with RHA and cast armor in mind, it was felt FHA would not be widely used due to its more involved production process and the accompanying higher cost.

A gun mantle is not a major part of any armored vehicle. It is less than 10% of the potential armored area being penetrated.

The nose of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. This indicates that it not only did it fail on FHA but also on RHA because it was "excessively soft" and not because the US didn't know the Germans used FHA Armor. Certainly not because they designed it to only penetrate RHA and cast. The Americans didn't enter action in the European War until mid 1942 and there was definately information readily available about German Armor for at least two years.

Whether you did it by mistake or not is quite irrelevant, I took the opportunity to challenge you on it and you take offense because I did it. I too was once like you but that, I realise, is a folly of youth. Quite frankly if you think I've flamed you then you really have thin skin. It matters very little to me if you choose to act out over some personal hurt and therefore continue to deny yourself the opportunity to learn.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

16th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#95 15 years ago
FryaDuckIf you are going to be proported as; Then you should be expected to know the subject and be able to communicate the information correctly. You should be as pedantic as the "vast wealth" of knowledge you possess. You misscommunicated or missrepresented the information and thereby, the less informed would or could conclude, that German Armor was FHA. You have shown yourself that this was not the case and I confirmed it. A gun mantle is not a major part of any armored vehicle. It is less than 10% of the potential armored area being penetrated. The nose of US armor-piercing ammunition of the time turned out to be excessively soft. This indicates that it not only did it fail on FHA but also on RHA because it was "excessively soft" and not because the US didn't know the Germans used FHA Armor. Certainly not because they designed it to only penetrate RHA and cast. The Americans didn't enter action in the European War until mid 1942 and there was definately information readily available about German Armor for at least two years. Whether you did it by mistake or not is quite irrelevant, I took the opportunity to challenge you on it and you take offense because I did it. I too was once like you but that, I realise, is a folly of youth. Quite frankly if you think I've flamed you then you really have thin skin. It matters very little to me if you choose to act out over some personal hurt and therefore continue to deny yourself the opportunity to learn.

Your assuming you have something to teach. Please reread the thread




the_M6D_legend

7.62mm...full...metal...j acket

50 XP

27th July 2004

0 Uploads

243 Posts

0 Threads

#96 15 years ago

Fryaduck, from a neutral point of view you actually seem like your trying to go out the way to cause a problem....




Mazz

BFE-WAW

50 XP

15th November 2003

0 Uploads

1,245 Posts

0 Threads

#97 15 years ago

Agreed, the feel i got from your first few posts waere more of a personal attack then just disagreeing about the armor.




LeopardSeal

Back in the "Good old days"...

50 XP

20th December 2003

0 Uploads

334 Posts

0 Threads

#98 15 years ago
Mazz Agreed, the feel i got from your first few posts waere more of a personal attack then just disagreeing about the armor.

@Frya I don't have a horse in this race, but I have to agree. It's clear you're looking for a fight, right or wrong. I've always found Anlushac to be polite and well informed, and I've argued a fine point with him a few times. Your whole "he's not so smart, but I am" coupled with what appears to be an attempt to discredit him as a Dev (for whatever personal reason) is wearing a bit thin.